General Debate 26 February 2013

February 26th, 2013 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

179 Responses to “General Debate 26 February 2013”

  1. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Our “clean energy” future: doubling our power prices.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9889184/One-day-turning-off-the-lights-wont-be-up-to-you.html

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    These Sea Shepherd muppets have lost all credibility in my eyes now to the extent that I almost feel empathy for the whalers.
    Even the photos that they have put up trying to demonstrate that the whaling ship ‘rammed’ them, it looks to be completely the opposite. Which is what I now expect from these miscreants.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Comparing Labour MP’s list position in 2011 with the their top twenty position now – there’s been a lot of movement including Shearer from 31 to 1: New Labour ranking compared to list

    And a compilation of first reactions of Shearer’s reshuffle from a leftish perspective, including Labour party members and activists:

    Not too bad really.

    There are no Cunliffe people on the front bench. It’s not a very unifying move.

    I’d have picked Cunliffe and Little for the Jobs and Economic Development roles respectively but that was never going to happen.

    This is a reshuffle that has put Grant Robertson and his people in poll position.

    I’m just happy to see an attempt at renewal.

    It is incredulous that the Shearer leadership is continuing on a path of the divide and rule
    style of politics, if ever there was a need for the labour leaderhsip to be inclusive and
    concillatory was now, however what labourites have got is a fingerlicking hope that the
    winds blow fair and the masses follow.

    General and MP specific views from a Labour perspective, not very encouraging for the party Shearer shuffle – views from the left

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. david (2,563 comments) says:

    If you read this para, what do you think happened?

    “A Christchurch woman was saved from a vicious sexually motivated attack by the loyal dog she adopted only two months ago.”

    Not wishing to be pedantic but this implies quite the opposite to what the story on Stuff was about. It is not about a sexually frustrated dog attacking its owner.

    Whatever happened to knowledge of basic grammar?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    david – It happens so often in the media! I don’t think it’s pedantic at all to call them on it!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    I’ve seen far worse in the media, including basic spelling mistakes and the wrong word being used. “Brought” and “bought”, anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    @David

    It seems that the reporter should avoid long sentences. The logical conclusion is that a loyal dog wouldn’t attack someone who had adopted it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kowtow (8,774 comments) says:

    wine oh

    Sea Shepherd never had any credibility.

    They endanger life at sea, contrary to the first rule of good seamanship.

    They belong in jail ,not on ships.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Neil (589 comments) says:

    Have had a bit of a think about the Solid Energy fiasco.
    My first comment is that the government should not be running a coal exploration and production company – they are the overall conductor not the actual violinists in the orchestra. How can the government actually turn around low coal prices.
    Now we are talking about a bail out. Who will be contributing to that ? Of course the taxpayers. If it was a private company then it would take its course,seclare bankruptcy, then perhaps takeover by a stronger rival. Probably overseas
    People love it when the government sees their assets shooting ahead, however when things are going the other way ???????????
    Economic literacy and common sense is not strong among the general population. We have a small view rather than the needed commercial view which is of a larger perspective

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    A bit of a turnaround:

    Contrite Prosser humbled by evening spent with Muslim couple

    Two weeks after his anti-Muslim column was published, NZ First MP Richard Prosser has shared a “lovely” meal and “humbling” evening with the young Muslim couple who wrote to the Herald to challenge his comments.

    The couple shared a meal of tandoori chicken, but Mr Prosser said he also received “a little bit of a grilling and that’s fair enough”.

    The derogatory language he used in the column wasn’t specifically brought up, but the views behind it were and Mr Prosser said he apologised for what he said was “horribly wrong” and written in a desperate rush to meet a deadline.

    “In the end we both agreed that there was a lack of judgment on Richard’s behalf, and that he probably shouldn’t be writing articles at 4am following a week of no sleep,” Khay said.

    She said Mr Prosser seemed to understand his position as an MP meant he needed to be “mindful of the way in which he makes his opinion known”.

    “More importantly, we do believe he understands why he should be apologising.

    “After speaking with the man, I am fully convinced his heart is in the right place and he is honest in his contrition.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10867782

    Prosser appears to be very different to Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2013/02/oscars-worst-dressed.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    @ kowtow, agreed, though we just didn’t know it early on. They seemed to pick up the banner where Greenpeace left off when it came to anti-whaling… but they took the pirate flag a bit too literally & turned into a law-wrecking menace.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. All_on_Red (1,645 comments) says:

    “Freedom of speech to the left means freedom to make particular statements that are consistent with the views of the left. Everything else, so far as they are concerned, should be forbidden.”

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2013/02/if-i-may-be-allowed-to-speak-freely

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. MT_Tinman (3,257 comments) says:

    Kowtow, I’m quite happy to leave the seashepherd pirates on their ships – I’d simply sink those ships.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Government hosts state dinner for king of tonga……..

    Why do we waste time and money on these prehistoric wastrels from some halfbit pacific island? The Tongan royal family has kept their people in a state of depression for generations while the family has wasted the resources of their country.

    He should be sent home and told to help his people and to stop wasting money.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Longknives (4,878 comments) says:

    Very sad news regarding Phillip Leishman. I grew up with him presenting pretty much everything sports related…so like probably most Kiwis my generation, felt that I kind of knew him.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    i need not say more.

    http://beartales.me/2012/04/30/australia-is-really-going-to-achieve-something-introducing-a-carbon-tax-are-we/

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Longknives (4,878 comments) says:

    What on earth was that horrid Obama woman (desperately trying to turn her permanent scowl into a fake smile) doing presenting an Academy Award?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/25/why-was-michelle-obama-at-the-oscars/

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    I had a phone call last night, it was to ask me which party I would vote for if the elections were to be held now. I said to the caller ” Do you know when the next elections are likely to be held?” And guess what? He had no bloody idea.
    I reckon someone should do a poll about political polls. See how many people think they are a waste of time.
    Maybe we should all do what I did last night. Politely explain to the caller that there is absolutely no point in having a political poll so far out from the anticipated election date.
    It seems every time there is not a lot happening someone says “Let’s have a political poll to fill up the news content”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    Latest poll (Curia/FamFirstNZ) on same-sex marriage (thanks DPF). 47% agree, 43% believe Civil Unions sufficient. Half of NZ think should go to a binding referendum. Strong support for special protections for people who disagree with gay marriage.

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/curia-and-curious-same-sex-marriage/

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    iMP (1,063) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 10:11 am

    “In 2004, Parliament legislated to allow same sex couples to register a civil union, amending over 150 pieces of legislation to give legal rights and recognition to same-sex couples. Do you think Parliament should change the definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry, or do you think civil unions are sufficient for same sex couples?”

    A good example of structuring a question to reflect the bias of the group which commissioned the poll.

    The question implies that marriage is not a right in and of itself. The reference to “150 pieces of legislation” is designed to convey an impression of gay rights run amok. While homosexuality is a largely trivial and irrelevant consideration in many people’s lives (as most are not gay) a reference to a high number of “pieces of legislation” is designed to change that perception to instill in a person’s mind that “hold on, maybe all this gay rights stuff is going to be imposed on me somehow” as opposed to simply granting gay couples the recognition and legal rights that everyone else takes for granted.

    Moreover, the statement that Parliament is attempting to “change the definition of marriage” is itself biased as marriage is not defined in the Marriage Act 1955 and those who support the Marriage Amendment Bill would argue that the definition is not changing, rather Parliament is simply recognizing something that is perfectly natural and which exists regardless of how Parliament acts.

    The fact that more people still supported same-sex marriage as opposed to those who thought civil unions sufficient is surely kinda embarrassing given the biased nature in which the poll was conducted.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    iMP, I’m surprised that DPF hasn’t blogged on it.
    Maybe he’s giving the topic a well-deserved rest.

    [DPF: I’ve blogged the results at Curiablog]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    “hold on, maybe all this gay rights stuff is going to be imposed on me somehow”

    As it eventually will.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,939) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 10:50 am

    “hold on, maybe all this gay rights stuff is going to be imposed on me somehow”

    As it eventually will.

    Don’t worry. Jesus will return soon after. Praise Jesus! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Two powerful dairy organizations, The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), are petitioning the Food and Drug Administration to allow aspartame and other artificial sweeteners to be added to milk and other dairy products without a label.

    The FDA currently allows the dairy industry to use “nutritive sweeteners” including sugar and high fructose corn syrup in many of their products. Nutritive sweeteners are defined as sweeteners with calories.

    This petition officially seeks to amend the standard of identification for milk, cream, and 17 other dairy products like yogurt, sweetened condensed milk, sour cream, and others to provide for the use of any “safe and suitable sweetener” on the market.
    They claim that aspartame and other artificial sweeteners would promote healthy eating and is good for school children.
    According to the FDA notice issued this week:
    Full article: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/aspartame-in-milk-without-label-big.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Scott (1,818 comments) says:

    Weihana, Jesus will return and sort everything out. This is one time I agree with you. Just hold that thought.

    Regarding the poll and the question you might like to take it up with the owner of this blog. It is his company I understand that did the poll.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    “….Moreover, the statement that Parliament is attempting to “change the definition of marriage” is itself biased as marriage is not defined in the Marriage Act 1955 and those who support the Marriage Amendment Bill would argue that the definition is not changing, rather Parliament is simply recognizing something that is perfectly natural and which exists regardless of how Parliment acts…”

    “…..rather Parliament is simply recognizing something that is perfectly natural….”

    So you have no problem then that parliment also ‘recognize’ that Marriage is the best system of welfare for women and children that humanity has ever known? …..or are you saying it’s not?

    They don’t have to make that a law to ‘recognize’ it, rather it’s just general knowledge…..from each generation to the next…or ‘natural’ as you say!

    Marriage due to it’s very nature – the relationship OF natural procreation- has by it’s very PERFORMANCE or PATTERN been defined for 6000+ years – long, long, long before NZ law was ever ‘recognized’.

    Oh, one last thing…..law ain’t ‘natural’ Weihana! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. wreck1080 (3,964 comments) says:

    Why should the govt rescue the farmers in a drought?

    The govt doesn’t care if exporters go broke in a high dollar environment by saying that maybe they don’t deserve to be in business.

    So, surely if farmers can’t handle a drought every few years then they should not be in business either.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Scott (1,177) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Regarding the poll and the question you might like to take it up with the owner of this blog. It is his company I understand that did the poll.

    I presume it was Family First NZ who determined what the question was. Regardless, it is a poorly worded question…. unless of course your objective is to show that “support for Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill has steadily dropped”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    More revelations of endemic bum sex in the Catholic church.
    Calls for more resignations for the sorry history of bum and kiddy sex coverups.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/pope-forces-out-keith-obrien
    The pope has forced the abrupt resignation of Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic as the church made a frantic attempt to minimize the impact of allegations of “inappropriate acts” committed by Cardinal Keith O’Brien against fellow priests.
    But the move led critics to demand that other cardinals at the centre of scandals over failures to report sex abuse by priests – including Roger Mahony, emeritus archbishop of Los Angeles, and Seán Brady, the primate of all Ireland – “recuse” themselves from the papal conclave, citing O’Brien’s decision as a precedent.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    The PM is living in Lala Land if he seriously believes the high NZ Dollar is good for New Zealanders. He should ask those workers who have lost their jobs what they would rather have – a cheap flat screen TV or a good paying job to feed their family.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,145) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 11:08 am

    So you have no problem then that parliment also ‘recognize’ that Marriage is the best system of welfare for women and children that humanity has ever known? …..or are you saying it’s not?

    Ambiguous and/or nonsensical question. Marriage is not a static concept and has changed over time. Indeed, nowadays it is in no sense a “system of welfare for women and children”. Children’s rights and interests are enshrined in law and women are perfectly capable of looking after themselves or, if they choose, to exist as an equal in a partnership.

    Marriage due to it’s very nature – the relationship OF natural procreation- has by it’s very PERFORMANCE or PATTERN been defined for 6000+ years – long, long, long before NZ law was ever ‘recognized’.

    Marriage has not been defined for 6000 years. It is a cultural tradition that has evolved and changed over time depending on the society and the culture.

    And it certainly hasn’t been defined for GREATER than 6000 years… because God hadn’t yet farted the Universe into existence.. duh.. 8-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    So you have no problem then that parliment also ‘recognize’ that Marriage is the best system of welfare for women and children that humanity has ever known? …..or are you saying it’s not?

    I’ll say it’s not. For a start humanity managed to survive successfully before the social construct of marriage in it’s various forms were devised.

    Being locked into a marriage (by financial or social pressure) with a violent and/or abusive husband was not the best system of welfare for women and children. Ditto with a husband who was an alcoholic or mentally ill or work shy or in prison etc etc and couldn’t care for the welfare of wife and children adequately.

    And a de facto couple can be as good for women and children as a marriage – in fact children don’t understand or care about the concept of legal marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    The coward PG enthusiastically smearing all good fathers and husbands as usual.

    To make a false political point.

    Dirtbag.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Lance (2,714 comments) says:

    @Pete George
    Marriage was not about love many moons ago, it was about survival.
    Someone had to make sure the mother and kids didn’t starve and marriage was a declaration to the tribe/ group that this man takes responsibility in front of everyone.
    Things were a lot more basic in the past.

    Also basic survival was difficult in the past, that’s why theft was a capital offence. Stealing someones food meant they might die next winter.

    Admittedly times have moved on and there are different issues now but the fantasy that marriage is a latter day social construct is drivel. The love part is the only modern addition.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    As clueless as ever Pete George as regurgitates shallow feminist memes and displays his profound ignorance of history, culture and human nature.

    Listen you testosterone challenged dolt – in the real world it was fucking hard to ensure childrens survival and thus the requirement of bonding the father of any children to their mother before they were even conceived spontaneously evolved in many places long before there were Governments.

    Governments usurped marriage beginning about 200 years ago and like anything the Government gets grubby its hands on have just about fucked it

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Jim Rickards: the Fed is Racing to Create Inflation Before the US Economy Implodes!

    http://www.buysilverbullionuk.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=110&catid=2&id=161&lang=en&view=topic

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

    Good article on the US destroying itself:

    Sound of silence as new debt woes grow

    America has plenty of enemies but they can probably relax. Who among them could do to the US the amount of damage that it is doing to itself?

    Terrorists brought down some buildings in New York and punched a hole in the Pentagon. But it was not a terrorist who brought down the US economy at a staggering cost of more than $US20 trillion ($19.4 trillion) in losses in the value of family homes, shares and retirement funds.

    It was, of course, poor US policy and weak governance. In other words, it was self-inflicted, man-made and entirely avoidable. The enemies of the US can only dream of inflicting this much damage on the superpower.
    :::
    The US system of problem-solving, otherwise known as national politics, is not working. And the country seems to be in danger of neither knowing nor caring.

    Yet you can assume that just about everyone in the US will know something about the Oscars.

    The Roman satirist Juvenal saw the decay of the Roman Empire as a problem of the distraction of the people with ”bread and circuses”. What would he say about America today?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Lance (2,714 comments) says:

    @hinamanu
    Can you see how those dire warnings coming from a website dedicated to flogging off silver bullion seems more than a bit contrived?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    “…Being locked into a marriage (by financial or social pressure) with a violent and/or abusive husband was not the best system of welfare for women and children….”

    “….was not the best…”

    So then Pete and Weihana ….what was then better? :cool:

    “….Marriage has not been defined for 6000 years. It is a cultural tradition that has evolved and changed over time depending on the society and the culture….”

    Procreation has ALWAYS been at the center of Marriages’ existance.

    Or in other words, if man was asexual and did NOT procreate, we would then NEVER EVER had anything like Marriage! :cool:

    Yeah….some gays were ONCE Married SOMEWHERE long FORGOTTEN……and some men BEAT their wifes…….or what anyone who takes the welfare of children seriously would say – a statistical abberation. :cool:

    Your arguements are immature. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Lance (2,714 comments) says:

    @KK
    So are you saying GW Bush was the biggest traitor in US history, or just the US people themselves?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    The coward PG enthusiastically smearing all good fathers and husbands as usual.

    To make a false political point.

    Dirtbag.

    Red trying to smear to make some sort of point, full of humour (probably unintentional) and full of bull.

    I didn’t smear any good fathers or husbands. But you knew that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    From an email by Bob McCoskrie – the result of the poll today, taken with previous polls, shows that support for gay marriage is actually falling

    WHAT IS THE TREND since the same-sex marriage debate officially started in the middle of last year?

    A Herald on Sunday poll last month showed that support for redefining marriage had fallen from a previous high of 63% in a ONE News Colmar Brunton poll last May to just 53% now. (The politicians supporting gay marriage only quote the ONE News poll!) This echoes a similar slide in polling by Research NZ which showed support for ‘same-sex marriage’ dropping to less than 50%, down 11% from a similar poll in 2011.

    And now our polling of 1,000 people through an independent research company shows that support for redefining marriage has dropped to just 47% with almost as many (43%) saying civil unions are enough.

    So, taken altogether with past polls, it shows that support has dropped from 63% -> 53% (Colmar Brunton), and now in this poll down to 47%.

    So much for public support.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Scott (1,818 comments) says:

    Just to lay the poll question issue to rest, I would contend that we can take it as read that gay marriage does not command majority support in New Zealand. It was not part of the government’s mandate and so was not put before the electorate to receive their approval. I would suggest that John Key would not be the Prime minister today if prior to the election said that gay marriage is going to be introduced into parliament and I will be supporting it, as will many of my caucus.
    But not only has it never had a mandate in an election, gay marriage has never been put before the New Zealand public in a referendum. That’s because it would lose. Kevin Hague admitted as much in a public meeting I was part of. When challenged by Colin Craig about why wasn’t it put before the New Zealand public in a referendum, Kevin Hague reply was that “minorities don’t do well in referendums”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Fletch, you are referring to three separate polls (and different polling companies) – to compare those poll results it’s necessary to compare the questions. What were the questions in each of the three polls?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Polls commissioned by lobbying organisations are always worded to get the best result they can.

    And if one ignores the undecideds every poll (however slanted the wording) has given support for the proposed change.

    As there is no opposition majority it will be in law by April.

    10 years on from civil unions and half those who opposed it then now support it, so shall it be again.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. dime (10,109 comments) says:

    PG – you wanna be Mr Sensible. You come across as anything but.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,147) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 12:06 pm

    So then Pete and Weihana ….what was then better?

    Procreation has ALWAYS been at the center of Marriages’ existance.

    Sort of. I would argue economics is more central, but the overriding point is that the custom of marriage is not static. The rights and obligations it entailed and even how the marriage was arranged have changed significantly over time and from society to society. To refer to “traditional marriage” as this unchanging universal custom is simply a myth.

    Marriage is an evolving standard and in the modern world where wealth is abundant, where children are expected to survive, where women are the masters of their own destiny, it is unsurprising that this standard has changed in focus and application. It is because of this that people like yourself routinely employ cliched references to the “traditional” or vague and ambiguous references to procreation without ever really putting into concrete terms the harm that is supposed to befall society from recognizing gay relationships.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8352619/Pupils-in-hospital-after-taking-pills

    A pupil picked up an unlabelled pills container on the way to school and passed some tablets around.
    Talk about dumb and dumber.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Yvette (2,849 comments) says:

    Are civil unions equal enough to marriage, in rights and intent, that all marriage records be changed now to civil unions, and the term marriage be no longer officially used.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    PG –

    The Herald Digipoll question published Dec 27, 2012, was – “Which of these statements best fits your views about marriage law: 1) It should reamin only between a man and a woman (37.5%), 2) It should be changed to allow it between same-sex couples (59.3%)

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10856176

    The Herald on Sunday Research Poll question was:

    Do you think that same-sex civil unions should be extended to marriage?
    • Yes 53.9%
    • No 38.1%
    • Unsure 8%

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857496

    So, together with today’s poll, the percentage of those who think same-sex couples should be able to wed has fallen from 59.3% to 53.9% to today’s percentage of 47%.

    Two of the polls look to be NZ Herald polls that, yes, are a different polling company than Curia, but the questions are close enough, I think, to show support falling.

    Of course, none of that matters to the liberal politicians in Govt who will push it no matter what the public thinks (as they did with the smacking laws). They have their own agendas.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Elaycee (4,409 comments) says:

    More great work by our Police – a fresh batch of morons are soon to be shown a bed in a concrete apartment.

    I doubt society will miss them…. :D

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8353014/Kiwi-Canadian-drug-syndicate-busted

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,940) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    From an email by Bob McCoskrie – the result of the poll today, taken with previous polls, shows that support for gay marriage is actually falling…

    It shows no such thing. It shows that polls can be worded to produce the outcome you want. It reminds me of that Yes Prime Minister episode:

    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
    Bernard Woolley: Yes.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
    Bernard Woolley: Yes.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
    Bernard Woolley: Yes.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
    Bernard Woolley: Yes.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
    Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
    Bernard Woolley: Yes.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you’ve said you can’t say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
    [survey two]
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
    Bernard Woolley: Yes.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
    Bernard Woolley: Yes.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there’s a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
    Bernard Woolley: Yes.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it’s wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
    Bernard Woolley: Yes.
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
    Bernard Woolley: Yes.
    [does a double-take]
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086831/quotes

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. dime (10,109 comments) says:

    Lets play the Pete George game:

    “For a start humanity managed to survive successfully before the …… ”

    what kind of argument is that? how about

    “For a start humanity managed to survive successfully before the united party started banning legal highs”

    “For a start humanity managed to survive successfully before the airbus’ were introduced by air new zealand and peter whore dunne could be extra comfy on his free flights”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    More on the Archbishop who has resigned over bum sex allegations.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/cardinal-keith-obrien-abortion-homosexuality

    As befits one of the most outspoken churchmen of the already outspoken Roman Catholic church in Scotland, he has never been slow to condemn what he sees as immorality whenever and wherever he sees it.
    His vigorous opposition to same-sex marriage – “a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right” – his comparison of the abortion rate to “two Dunblane massacres a day” and his description of the implications of the human fertilisation and embryology bill as “grotesque” and akin to “Nazi-style experiments” earned him the respect and gratitude of conservative Catholics pleased to see a cardinal taking a stand.

    Meanwhile in the real world he was forcing himself on students for bum sex

    Filthy hypocrite.

    You have to ask are all exponents of homophobia closet homos ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Elaycee (3,322) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    More great work by our Police – with a fresh batch of morons destined for a bed in a concrete apartment.

    I doubt society will miss them…. :D

    Probably not. Whether society wants to continue to spend its money on employing people to run around after plants and to pay to imprison otherwise law abiding and non-violent people I’m not so sure. Certainly does appear a waste of money and little more than a jobs program for the police and prisons.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    You have to ask are all exponents of homophobia closet homos ?

    There seems to be a link between those who are very vocal about “morality” and deviant behaviour. Most people have their own morality, but find little need to air it publically. Those that do, invariably want to impose thier morality on others, while often failing spectacularly the “practice what you preach” test.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    “Filthy hypocrite.”

    Of course there is no such thing as hypocrisy in the perfectly formed and planned world of the secular progressive, is there?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Red, your sounding like a bum bandit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,941) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    So, together with today’s poll, the percentage of those who think same-sex couples should be able to wed has fallen from 59.3% to 53.9% to today’s percentage of 47%.

    What is the margin of error? How do you know that the two Herald polls show a statistically significant difference?

    Of course, none of that matters to the liberal politicians in Govt who will push it no matter what the public thinks

    Yet even in your own biased poll you lost. More people agree with it than disagree.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Elaycee (4,409 comments) says:

    Weihana:

    ….pay to imprison otherwise law abiding and non-violent people…

    Whaaaat? “Otherwise law abiding? And “non-violent?”
    Clearly you have proof to back up that statement – do share.

    Locking up morons who break the Law may not be your own cup of tea, but for my money (and it is!) I say: Great work NZ Police. Keep it up. The more morons who are locked up for breaking the Laws of the land, the better.

    They get zero sympathy from this taxpayer. And yes, I am one of the citizens paying the bill. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    Meanwhile in the real world he was forcing himself on students for bum sex

    When you say “students” you make it sound like children, which it was not.
    He was accused by other priests.

    Sounds like a very good argument against homosexual clergy, or are you all for that?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Viking2 (11,569 comments) says:

    Key not ruling out snap election over water rights

    Tuesday, 26, Feb, 2013 11:43AM

    The Prime Minister has not dismissed the idea of calling a snap election if the Supreme Court this week goes against the Government on the water rights case.

    It was put to John Key that his party’s key policy of partially privatising state assets could be in tatters if the court rules in favour of the Maori Council case before it.

    Mr Key was asked whether he would consider going to the country over the issue.

    He says if he was to answer the question, he would invite criticism that he was being disrespectful of our highest court in that if he didn’t like the decision he’d do something about it.

    The court is expected to deliver its decision this week.
    ———————————–

    Well lets hope that they do rule against the Govt. and Key mans up and calls an election pronto.
    Using this issue will get rid of the Maori and Labour and determine once and for all who governs rather than rules this country.

    Sooner the better.
    and elias can go with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    Yet even in your own biased poll you lost. More people agree with it than disagree.

    Weihana, you can’t have it both ways. First you speak about the margin of error, then you go on to say that the poll shows that more people agree with gay marriage than not. 43% plus the margin of error 3.2% could easily make it 50/50.

    Of course, that also depends upon the 10% who “don’t know” or won’t say.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Colmar Brunton May 2012
    In New Zealand same-sex couples can enter into a Civil Union, but they are not able to get married. Do you think same-sex couples should be able to get married?
    Yes: 63%
    No: 31%
    Don’t know: 5%
    Prefer not to say: 1%

    Herald Digipoll question published Dec 27, 2012
    “Which of these statements best fits your views about marriage law: 1) It should remain only between a man and a woman (37.5%), 2) It should be changed to allow it between same-sex couples (59.3%)

    Herald on Sunday January 6 2013
    Do you think that same-sex civil unions should be extended to marriage?
    • Yes 53.9%
    • No 38.1%
    • Unsure 8%

    Family First (Curia) February 2013
    In 2004, Parliament legislated to allow same sex couples to register a civil union,
    amending over 150 pieces of legislation to give legal rights and recognition to same-sex
    couples. Do you think Parliament should change the definition of marriage to allow
    same-sex couples to marry, or do you think civil unions are sufficient for same sex
    couples?

    Change marriage to allow same sex marriage 47%
    Civil unions are sufficient 43%
    Unsure/refuse 10%

    The first two polls are fairly neutral.
    The third poll isn’t definitive, for example “Do you think that same-sex civil unions should be extended to marriage?” could be answered know if you though marriage should be scrapped and everyone have the civil union option equally.

    The Family First ‘question’ is a statement that is as loaded as hell and can’t be compared to the others.

    The support for Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill has steadily dropped. Bob McCoskrie said, “We have got past the slogans of ‘marriage equality’ and ‘discrimination’ and the debate is now centered around the real purpose and role of marriage and the fact that there is actually no discrimination in the law currently,”

    There is nothing in these polls that refers to support for Louisa Wall’s bill so the “steadily dropped” claim is nonsense, and “actually no discrimination in the law currently,” is false.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Polls smolls, a distraction from the real issue

    I will bet you that Pete George cannot give a sound reason as to why we need same sex marriage?

    Sure he can fling about bullshit about “discrimination” but that is crap the rules surrounding who can marry who are the same for everybody which means there is no disrimination.

    Anyway poor ol’ Pete will struggle to come up with a good reason for doing this because there aint one

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Elaycee (3,323) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Clearly you have proof to back up that statement – do share.

    I do not require evidence to assume innocence in the absence of evidence to the contrary. You do realize where the burden of proof lies in a free society? This isn’t Singapore where people can be locked up indefinitely without due process. ;)

    If they are guilty of violent acts and the police can prove this then those charges should be added as well and I would support the prosecution of those charges alone regardless of whatever else happens.

    Locking up morons who break the Law may not be your own cup of tea, but for my money (and it is!)…

    They get zero sympathy from this taxpayer. And yes, I am one of the citizens paying the bill…

    Yes… ONE of. Unless you pay a 100 million (or whatever it is) in tax per year then it is not your money. You are, in effect, bludging off of others to fund a jobs program to prosecute an activity most people have engaged in at one time or another.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    I think gay people should have the same right that I do to get married to their partner of choice.

    If gay people are allowed to legally get married it will have no affect at all on me.

    I don’t see how gays getting married should have any affect on any heterosexual individuals or couples (married or not).

    The world wasn’t ended by introducing Civil Unions, it won’t end if a few more people are allowed to get married.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,943) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    Weihana, you can’t have it both ways…

    I’m not. I’m treating these figures in the same manner you have to contradict your own conclusion (that the government is ignoring “the public”). I reject the Family First poll outright.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    “…..I will bet you that Pete George cannot give a sound reason as to why we need same sex marriage?…”

    Here’s a sound and sane reason why he shouldn’t! :cool:

    Children acquired by same-sex couples are subject to problems inherent in their status. In addition, same-sex couples are more likely to be at risk for a number of problems which directly impact their ability to parent. That’s both of them.

    1) Intrinsic Factors – Every child acquired by a same sex couple has by definition been separated from one or both of his biological parents, through death, desertion, single parenthood, foster care, adoption, artificial insemination donor, or surrogate motherhood.
    Even in the best of circumstances such separation is perceived by the child as a loss. A same-sex couple is never the best of circumstances. It is by definition second best because it lacks a parent of both sexes. Worse still this particular tragedy is not accidental, but the result of the conscious, planned action of the persons on whom the child is dependent. These children are purposefully and permanently made fatherless or motherless.
    Adopted children ask: Why? What else will these children ask?
    In addition, same-sex families with children function like a cult. The child’s loss is denied. The children are made to feel that their legitimate desire for a parent of both sexes is a betrayal of their family’s sacrifice in the face of a hostile, non-accepting, homophobic culture.

    2) Risk Factors — Persons with SSA are far more likely than married men and women to suffer from psychological disorders, sexual addiction and paraphilias, suicidal ideation and attempts, unstable relationships, health problems, and to have been victims of abuse or violence.
    These problems rarely occur singly. Many persons with SSA suffer from a combination of disorders. In addition each same-sex relationship contains two persons who are at high risk, doubling the potential for a sub-optimum outcome.
    One has to ask: Are social workers intentionally ignoring problems when placing children with same-sex couples who have serious problems.

    Those defending marriage and care about the welfare of children need to make this information known. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    “…..If gay people are allowed to legally get married it will have no affect at all on me….”

    But Pete…. your not a child!

    Or are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Why is it necessary, Pete George, for the Government to register the relationships between people?

    Why does the Government have to be involved?

    Can you give me a profound reason for this?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Andrei, can you give a sound reason why a gay couple who wish to get married should be denied that legal right?

    If the law is changed to allow gay people to get married what direct affect would it have on your life?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    For anyone that’s interested for reference I’ve put the poll summary into a blog post: Marriage bill polls and Family First

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss the four horsemen of the bondpoclypse riding into town bringing with them the reversal of multi-decades long trends and as pipe swipers steal toilets and as supermarkets hit the limits of cost-cutting, the population confronts the high cost of backsliding trends. In the second half of the show, Max Keiser talks to former energy regulator, Chris Cook, about how we move from dollar diplomacy to gas diplomacy and a world where energy as the modern water hole where you don’t have to kill each other and a gas backed currency becomes a new global reserve currency in a post-dollar world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1731427.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Keith%20O%27Brien-1731427.png

    A church archdeacons Happy friendship.
    Check out the talent

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    No no no Pete George, I can answer that but I am not going to be distracted by the vapid talking points that you have absorbed from the gay lobby.

    That is a typical leftoid trick to try and change the subject when the emptyness of their arguments is exposed – it might fool the unintelligent but not me

    You need to tell me why the Government needs to be involved in personal realtionships

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Marriage for same sex couples will not change parenting arrangments as they occur now.

    They parent their own children now. They live in couples and raise up children together now. The children they seek to adopt are those of their partners. They can procreate children now, getting married will not change this in any way.

    The impact on children in the home is zero.

    PS Single gays can adopt now, once married they can adopt as a couple. But very few adoptions of New Zealand born children (to those not birth aprents or their partners) occur now and I am not sure if any gay has successfully done so.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    Yeah Pete….it is demanded of the government to stay out of the bedroom of gay relationships….but it is then demanded of government to get involved in those very same relationships!

    Why is that Pete?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Those claiming that support for the marriage law change has constantly dropped are facing their 1997 moment.

    Having realised an artificial result with their poll question future polls will show that the constant falling trend now no longer exists – and as they are still behind, their days are mene mene tekel upharsin.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,149) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Every child acquired by a same sex couple has by definition been separated from one or both of his biological parents, through death, desertion, single parenthood, foster care, adoption, artificial insemination donor, or surrogate motherhood.
    Even in the best of circumstances such separation is perceived by the child as a loss. A same-sex couple is never the best of circumstances.

    There is a difference between “best of circumstances I CAN IMAGINE” and “best of circumstances THAT ARE AVAILABLE”. The former is hypothetical and irrelevant. If the child’s mother is a crack ho but her father is in a stable homosexual relationship then the homosexual father IS the best of circumstances. And no, the fact that some mothers are crack ho’s isn’t the fault of homosexual marriage.

    In addition, same-sex families with children function like a cult. The child’s loss is denied. The children are made to feel that their legitimate desire for a parent of both sexes is a betrayal of their family’s sacrifice in the face of a hostile, non-accepting, homophobic culture.

    Prejudiced bullshit. You make assumptions about people you do not know.

    2) Risk Factors — Persons with SSA are far more likely than married men and women to suffer from psychological disorders, sexual addiction and paraphilias, suicidal ideation and attempts, unstable relationships, health problems, and to have been victims of abuse or violence.

    And black people are more likely to be criminals therefore they shouldn’t have children… or so goes Harriet’s woeful attempt at reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    And no thumb counts do not provide an argument against the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Andrei, the Government doesn’t “have to be involved in the relationships” between people.

    At this stage we have marriage laws, if there was a campaign to do away with marriage laws that made good enough arguments and got sufficient support then marriage laws couldbe wiped. But:

    – I don’t know of anyone seriousyl proposing and such a campaign

    – To do away with marriage law would raise some a tricky issues, like do you force everyone who is married to get a divorce first? Or just annul their marriages?

    – A number of other laws would also have to be changed.

    Do you think government should have no say in marriage?

    Do you think we should all be left to make up our own marriage rituals? That might open a can of worms, not that I’m suggesting anyone would want to marry a worm, but with nothing defined in law it could really open the floodgates.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Property rights exist for a married/civil union couple, for other couples only after 3 years.

    Without marriage laws, couples would be free to make multiple ceremonies with (polygamy/polyandry/polyamorous), including with relatives.

    It seems strange that those who oppose reform of the law because they say it would lead to advocacy for further reform, should then propose no marriage law at all – so what they fear can then occur without marriage law restraint.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    You know SPC we will get gay “marriage”, it will be rammed down our throats.

    And you people will continue to wring your hands over the number of children being bought up on the taxpayer, the numbers killed and injured at the hands of their momma’s latest boyfriend and all the other social pathologies that the lefts destruction of marriage as we received it have wrought.

    If you want to fix these problems you need to encourage young men to “cleave” to young women and for them to stick together through thick and thin as they take full responsibility for their own children and the raising of them.

    Instead we re going down the track of making marriage unappealing, making out it is a hotbed of violence towards women as P George did earlier on this thread and reducing it to being a piece of Government Issued paper celebrated on issuence with a cake with two dolls on top – a piece of paper with no signicance whatsoever.

    This is so dumb as to be unbelievably stupid – it will also be fatal to our culture in the not so long term

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Agra Giant Monsanto Signs on to UN Program ‘Agenda 21′

    ‘A United Nations (UN) scheme to surreptitiously seize property rights from people worldwide and pack the world’s populations into tiny micro-cities controlled by a centralized government has a new ally, Monsanto, which recently joined the so-called World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in pushing for the widespread implementation of the infamous “Agenda 21.”

    According to The New American, Monsanto joins a cohort of major banks, oil companies, and other powerful corporate players in pushing the UN Agenda 21 scam, which plans to eliminate national and social sovereignty, and enslave humanity under the guise of “sustainability.” Personal property ownership, the ability to travel freely, the ability to live without government intrusion in every area of your life — these and many other liberties will all disappear if Agenda 21 is fully implemented as intended.’

    Full article:http://theanti-media.org/2013/02/25/agra-giant-monsanto-signs-on-to-un-program-agenda-21/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    At this stage we have marriage laws

    Yes Pete George we do, why do we have them do you suppose?

    Do you think we should all be left to make up our own marriage rituals?

    But Pete George we can do this now – the only requirement in law is that both partners to the marriage express in public willingness to join together in marriage, the rest is up to what ever can be imagined and some really strange stuff is

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Gay marriage is a battle of symbolism on both sides. For the most part there is no practical significance as civil unions are for nearly all intents and purposes the same as marriage. On the one hand you have those who wish to advance the notion that gays are degenerates, child molesters, drug addicts etc and while they may be begrudgingly tolerated to some extent they should be recognized for their second class nature and the danger they represent to children. On the other hand you treat them as equals, giving them the same recognition and rights as everyone else and by logical extension the same WORD is used to describe their relationship.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Andrei, we agree on what will happen when this legislation goes back before parliament. MP’s realise that the older generation leads the opposition and those most affected by it – those yet to marry and those married of their generation support change.

    I see little change to wider society as a result, it simply becomes more inclusive – allowing a minority to now include marriage in their life plan. And where they choose family with that, I don’t see any difference to what exists now.

    The problems in our society, teen pregnancy, abortion rates, single motherhood, divorce and solo parenthood homes are not caused by same sex couples and thus keeping the marriage law as it is won’t solve any of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    “…..Prejudiced bullshit. You make assumptions about people you do not know….”

    Weihana,…. What would you then say to a child who asked “Why?….Why do I have two dads?” :cool:

    “….Even in the best of circumstances such separation is perceived by the child as a loss. A same-sex couple is never the best of circumstances….’

    Funny how you left the immediate next and only sentance out: ..”It is by definition second best because it lacks a parent of both sexes..” Or are you saying they are ‘exactly equal ‘ ? :cool:

    “……And black people are more likely to be criminals therefore they shouldn’t have children… or so goes Harriet’s woeful attempt at reasoning….’

    Funny how you left this bit out as well – also the very next sentance:……”….One has to ask: Are social workers intentionally ignoring problems when placing children with same-sex couples who have serious problems….”

    A hetro, white, young, female would be denied adoption if they were a criminal too ya’no! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    And you people will continue to wring your hands over the number of children being bought up on the taxpayer…

    How is some single mother the fault of gays generally? Did all single mothers have children to gay fathers?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Hobbit correspondence released under OIA. Looks even worse for the union gangsters than it did before. Slutty pants and Helen Keller should be hanging their heads in shame.
    http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/Hobbit-Documents.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Oh shit, you’re all still discussing this gay marriage shit.

    Global Warming is predominantly due to natural variation and there has been no warming for 16+ years.
    ALL Land-Ocean indexes show a cooling trend over the last decade.
    The top 700m of oceans show a cooling trend over the last decade.
    If there’s any heat stored in the deep oceans – so fucking what, it’s not going to do anything down there now is it?
    Extreme weather events are no more frequent or extreme than in the past.
    Wind and solar energy is vastly more expensive than gas and coal.
    It’s a fucking big conspiracy and the AGW proponents are being paid off by Big Government, Big Academia, Big Green and Big Insurance.

    discuss.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,151) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 2:36 pm

    “…..Prejudiced bullshit. You make assumptions about people you do not know….”

    Weihana,…. What would you then say to a child who asked “Why?….Why do I have two dads?”

    Obviously the answer depends on the circumstances. Could be anything from “your mum died in Afghanistan” to “we adopted you because you lived in a shit-hole third world country and we wanted to give you a better life”.

    Funny how you left the immediate next and only sentance out: ..”It is by definition second best because it lacks a parent of both sexes..” Or are you saying they are ‘exactly equal ‘ ?

    Funny how you completely missed the point being made… yet unsurprising. The point, which I repeat for your benefit, is that you are dealing in nothing more than hypotheticals that cannot be answered without real world context. While it is agreeable that having both a biological mother and father is ideal, practical reality doesn’t involve ideals it involves real world circumstances and having to make a decision based on what is actually happening not pontificating about what would be perfect.

    Funny how you left this bit out as well – also the very next sentance:……”….One has to ask: Are social workers intentionally ignoring problems when placing children with same-sex couples who have serious problems….”

    A hetro, white, young, female would be denied adoption if they were a criminal too ya’no!

    Are social workers intentionally ignoring problems when placing children with Maori couples who have serious problems?

    The point you seem to miss is that you are advancing nothing more than prejudice. Of course if a same sex couple has problems those should be assessed as it would for any other couple. But you don’t want just that. You want to prejudice them based merely on the fact that they are same-sex. You don’t care for specific evidence, you deal in prejudice.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    The problems in our society, teen pregnancy, abortion rates, single motherhood, divorce and solo parenthood homes are not caused by same sex couples and thus keeping the marriage law as it is won’t solve any of them.

    De-inking marriage from its fundamental purpose which is managing procreation will do nothing to address these things which are all examples of mismanaged procreation.

    You want to fix those problems then encourage normal people to get married and stay married – reward that, not the other

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    . “…..On the other hand you treat them as equals, giving them the same recognition and rights as everyone else and by logical extension the same WORD is used to describe their relationship….’

    Gays as individuals and as couples are already being treated as equals as they have a civil union.!

    The reason they can’t use the word ‘marriage’ is because the ‘relationship itself’ is not equal to the ‘hetro relationship’. It’s Completely differant – m/f as opposed to m/m and f/f.

    You are asigned a sex at birth – by observation – not by an arbitary decision made by a mid wive or doctor.

    And you can’t EVER change that truth. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Apparently they have had legal gay marriage in Canada for some time..It has not resulted in any great flurry of freedom, instead it has meant a big increase in state involvement in relationships impacting both adults and children.
    Has anyone else got any info on this? Theories are cheap but it would be good to hear more about actual results..It is unlikely NZ’s experience would be that different.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    There was a lot of publicity a few years back about the dangers of aspartame. Why should this be added to milk?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    big conspiracy and the AGW proponents are being paid off by Big Government, Big Academia, Big Green and Big Insurance.

    conspirowhacky
    :lol:
    Are you some sort of wingnut?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Yep, the sort of wingnut that can see through the bullshit. So if all the extra heat IS hiding below 700m in the oceans, what the fuck is it going to do from there? It has to get through the top 700m to get out, and the top 700m is cooling.

    And this wingnut says you’re a turd, the bullshit sort.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    And that thumbs up was from me, for helping change the subject :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Elaycee (4,409 comments) says:

    Weihana:

    I do not require evidence to assume innocence in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

    Oh, bollocks – you made a sweeping claim that the morons who were arrested were “otherwise law abiding and non-violent people…” and I called bullshit. And despite your bluster, you simply can’t deliver any proof they are law abiding and non-violent because there is no such proof. You wouldn’t have a clue. And not for the first time!

    And your next pearl:

    You are, in effect, bludging off of others…

    Haha – a person who describes himself as student with a penchant for dope tries to call a taxpayer running a business, a bludger???? Bwahahahaaaaaa…. Sure, Weihana. Of course. Right on. Got it in one. Pffttt…..

    Best you stick to something you know a bit about…. Mmmm, that could be a problem, couldn’t it?

    The real world will come as a bloody shock to you if you ever find it….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    “…..Obviously the answer depends on the circumstances. Could be anything from “your mum died in Afghanistan” to “we adopted you because you lived in a shit-hole third world country and we wanted to give you a better life”….”

    Idiot, it doesn’t change the fact that the child doesn’t NOW have a mother and father as ‘parents’ – it’s NOW got gay ones – a sub-obtimal parenting model. They NEED to be adopted etc to hetro couples as the child is SUFFERING LOSS of a parent!

    Fuck your either dumb – selfish – or fucken cruel!

    “…One has to ask: Are social workers intentionally ignoring problems when placing children with same-sex couples who have serious problems…A hetro, white, young, female would be denied adoption if they were a criminal too ya’no!..”
    “……The point you seem to miss [Harriet]is that you are advancing nothing more than prejudice. Of course if a same sex couple has problems those should be assessed as it would for any other couple. But you don’t want just that. You want to prejudice them based merely on the fact that they are same-sex. You don’t care for specific evidence, you deal in prejudice…..”

    Did you not get the point about the white chick?

    And If you fucken think that people are going to list EVERY fucken example and EVERY race and EVERY creed to get 1 point across about gay marriage – your completly fucked in the head.

    Fuck off and take your immature understanding of child behaviour with you! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    Joana#

    You can start here: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/02/23/canadas-ugly-gender-agenda/

    Then go to the home page of culture watch and pick any topic you care and it will explain to you how the left have ruined Western Society. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    You god botherers are really putting a lot of effort into opposing gay marriage. Are you concerned your priests will all be eloping with alter boys, or that you will give into your lustful homosexual urges the moment the governments laws fail to restrain that pent up carnal lust that haunts you constantly ?

    You need not worry as the Archbishop, and many many others, have shown that the laws of our secular government fail to stop gay bum rape of young boys by gods reps here on earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    I see little change to wider society as a result, it simply becomes more inclusive

    Oh ye of such little foresight. Are you really that blind?
    It will change everything. Marriage won’t be marriage any more – at least it won’t mean what it always did.
    Reminds me of a quote from Stephen Lawhead (writer of fantasy novels).

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

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    Weihana#

    You cannot place a child in a sub-optimal parenting model when they are suffering the LOSS of a parent[s].

    Gay relationships – TO A CHILD – is sub-optimal!

    That’s the point.

    If I’m being prejudiced- it’s completly irrelevant as I’m NOT the child and NEITHER are the gays!

    There is two aspects of parenting a child – not just one:
    Child welfare is ALWAYS about what is BEST for the child as seen THROUGH the eyes of a child – that’s the ‘modelling aspect’ of what is best.
    The ‘secondry matter’ is ‘do the parents make ideal parents?’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    Gregory Koukl writes on the Stand To Reason blog –

    For many years homosexuals simply wanted the government out of their bedrooms. They wanted freedom to do as they pleased in the privacy of their own homes. With the exception of a few archaic, unenforced laws, homosexuals can now live without legal interference. As one writer put it, the closet door is wide open. Homosexual characters take the lead in TV sitcoms. They’ve been elected to Congress and sit on the President’s cabinet.

    But liberty and influence have not been enough. Homosexuals are after bigger game. This debate is not about hate versus tolerance. It’s not about justice. It’s not even about the liberty to make life-long unions. It’s about something else. Homosexuals want the courts to give them by force what the public would not voluntarily cede: respect and honor.

    Exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    A nine-day traffic jam in China is now more than 100 kilometres long and could last for weeks, state media reported Monday.

    Thousands of trucks en route to Beijing from Huai’an in the southeast have been backed up since Aug. 14, making the National Expressway 100 impassable, Xinhua News reported.

    A spokesman for the Beijing Traffic Management Bureau reportedly told China’s Global Times newspaper that the backup was due to “insufficient traffic capacity … caused by maintenance construction.”

    The construction is scheduled to last until Sept. 13.

    http://www.secretsofthefed.com/terrible-commute-100-km-chinese-traffic-jam-enters-day-9/

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

    - AGW is a big fucking conspiracy
    – Gay marriage is not going to cause the fall of civilisation as we know it. This is because the vast majority of people hook up with someone of the opposite sex and it’s just kind of cute when gays hook up.

    Can we get onto something original?

    Joyce is busy rooting the manufacturing industry single handed:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/fran-osullivan-on-business/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502864&objectid=10867563

    What’s he got against widget makers?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Wonder if Harriet is Red’s wife

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Kea – marriage is the foundation of our civilization. It is worth fighting to preserve it, damaged as it has been by the progressives.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    A child should not be purpously placed in childhood where they face their entire childhood ‘suffering’ the loss of a parent.

    That is simply cruel!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    No one is suggesting that marriage be taken away from you Andrei. You can preserve it as much as you like, even if you think your’s is damaged. From where I’m looking marriage looks secure.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Fletch, to everyone marrying marriage will still be marriage – saying otherwise is mere debate rhetoric.

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

    When the world decided it could determine what the word of God was by writing it down in a book and claim this knowledge of good and evil had the authority of God, they still had to reckon with the fact that they were mortal and their dominion had a time expiry. The only antidote for this monstrous beastly human arrogance is grace of God alone.

    Until the blind realise this they remain blind.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. dime (10,109 comments) says:

    “The world wasn’t ended by introducing Civil Unions”

    “the world wasnt ended when we could buy legal highs”

    your argument is just garbage PG.

    heres the thing. Dime has no issue with gay people (i think trannys are generally messed up though). i dont care who sleeps with who etc etc

    BUT i do wonder if this gay marriage thing is just something driven by the gay elites with the sole purpose of pissing off the church.

    what rights do gays not have under civil unions that “married” people have?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,156) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    Fuck off and take your immature understanding of child behaviour with you!

    You must be an expert in child behavior as you are demonstrating how one behaves.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    andrei, the origin of the idea that marriage is the foundation of civilisation is

    1. the creation myth

    Chapter 1 Genesis – “God created mankind in his own image in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”

    Chapter 2 Genesis “for Adam no suitable helper was found. … So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”

    But there is no indication of any marriage between the two, she was created as his wife. Marriage is a construct of a group society, with its rites of marriage.

    2. the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans where he connects faith in a Creator God to procreative sexuality (and idolatry to same sex activity) building on the Creation myth in Genesis.

    1. Refers to those with faith in a God who made creation – where women were created to be wives of men and be a mother to their sons. In Hebrew culture being the mother of a son was the prime role of a woman (inheritance of estate property). Thus the mother and daughter story of the household of Lot, where out of a woman came only a daughter and what she could do for her mother (son in law and grandson).

    2. Refers to Christian civilisation advocated to the Greeks (who called the first woman Pandora, in modern parlance property relationship law).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Elaycee (3,324) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 3:12 pm

    Oh, bollocks – you made a sweeping claim that the morons who were arrested were “otherwise law abiding and non-violent people…” and I called bullshit. And despite your bluster, you simply can’t deliver any proof…

    Clearly the point is beyond you but I do not require proof. If you are “calling bullshit” then the onus is on you to prove otherwise. People are not guilty until shown otherwise to Elaycee’s satisfaction.

    Haha – a person who describes himself as student with a penchant for dope tries to call a taxpayer running a business, a bludger???? Bwahahahaaaaaa…. Sure, Weihana. Of course. Right on. Got it in one. Pffttt…..

    Best you stick to something you know a bit about…. Mmmm, that could be a problem, couldn’t it?

    The real world will come as a bloody shock to you if you ever find it….

    I haven’t described myself to you nor do you know me. Your speculation is inaccurate but not unexpected from someone who relies on ad hominem while struggling to make something resembling a coherent argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    what rights do gays not have under civil unions that “married” people have?

    They don’t have the right to get married. I thought that was fairly obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Yvette (2,849 comments) says:

    Nor, as a couple, can they adopt children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8348606/Millions-lost-to-dating-scams

    There are a lot of gullible people out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Kea – marriage is the foundation of our civilization. It is worth fighting to preserve it,

    Andrei, sorry I thought you were opposing gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. dime (10,109 comments) says:

    You really are as thick as shit pg.

    For a condescending middle of the road ahole, you seem rather insensitive to how a large group of people feel.

    Because… The world won’t end.

    The world won’t end if I cave your head in with a brick, but you’d probably prefer that didn’t happen.

    Anyway, under a civil union people share the same surname if they wish. They live together. They have protection so if one of them dies they inherit that persons shit (bit of an issue with gay people in the past).

    What exactly does marriage have that civil unions don’t?

    They even have ceremonies for civil unions.

    What percentage of the population is gay? 3%?

    Percentage of Christians who are against it?

    I know have 5 gay friends. 1 insists on the marriage thing, the other 4 don’t give a fuck.

    So are we talking the minority of a minority that this effects? Along with piss weak losers like pg?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    National increase the MW by 25 cents (1.5 to 2%) to $13.75 an hour. This allows a further increase to $14 next year and one to $14.25 in 2015.

    They could have offered a 50 cent increase (3-4%) to $14 this year, and $14.50 next year and offered to increase it further to $15 in 2015. Thus matched the Labour policy which is to pay $15 in 2015.

    Now the Labour proposal will involve an extra $30 a week for those on the MW in 2015.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Parliament Today ‏@ParliamentNZ

    Child Support Amendment Bill completes second reading 68 to 52 with National, NZ First, ACT and United Future in favour

    Good to see this progressing, and good to see NZ First supporting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    You really are as thick as shit pg.

    You’re the one who doesn’t get it.

    Yes, it only affects a small minority. That’s one of the key points – it doesn’t affect the rest of us. So if we expand the right to get married to a few more people it won’t hurt most of us and it gives some people an option they’d like to have as well.

    That applies even if only 1 in 5 gays decides to use the option. Good for some, no damage for anyone else. So I don’t know why you’re pissy about it.

    Something similar applied with the prostitution reform bill, that doesn’t affect most of us, but it made things better for a small minority. If majority ruled on that it probably wouldn’t have happened – certainly not if the very vocal “the world as we know it will end” minority had their say.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Wind energy on large scales is overestimated in capacity:

    Estimates that ignore the effect of wind turbine drag on local winds have assumed that wind power production of 2–4 W m−2 can be sustained over large areas. New results from a mesoscale model suggest that wind power production is limited to about 1 W m−2 at wind farm scales larger than about 100 km2

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/015021/

    Changing wind patterns on large scales could also cause significant climate change. Ruh roh.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Elaycee (4,409 comments) says:

    Weihana: Clearly you forget what you write, so I’ll help:

    You said:

    Whether society wants to continue to spend its money… … to imprison otherwise law abiding and non-violent people…

    Do you see the bit where you said: “…imprison otherwise law abiding and non-violent people”… ?

    Yes, I called bullshit on your comment because you have no idea whether they are law abiding or not. For all you know, they could have a track record as long as your arm. And yet you claim they are law abiding and non violent??? But clearly you don’t know. And that’s why your claim is bullshit. Pffttt.

    To help you paint a mental picture of these fine citizens (who you claim to be law abiding and non-violent), check this out:
    http://www.police.govt.nz/featured/canadian-methamphetamine-trail-leads-cannabis-grow-houses-auckland

    The best comment relating to this came from Minister Tolley:
    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/minister-praises-police-international-drug-bust

    Especially this bit:

    “A jail cell will be the only reward for anyone stupid enough to get involved.”

    Touche.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Pete George:

    Something similar applied with the prostitution reform bill, that doesn’t affect most of us, but it made things better for a small minority.

    You sure about that? You might want to ask some of the people of Hunter’s Corner in Papatoetoe – the workers, the people who try to look after them, AND the residents.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. wreck1080 (3,964 comments) says:

    John Key thinks a high dollar is good then?

    But, as long as he realises that the hangover to a bubble dollar means that the NZD will sometime plunge to it’s lowest levels ever, pushing petrol to well over $3 a litre.

    This is what happens when bubbles burst. I would hope the government does nothing when this happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Elaycee (3,325) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    Weihana: Clearly you forget what you write…

    No I didn’t. I have acknowledged clearly that it is an assumption and requires no evidence. People are presumed innocent without evidence to the contrary. I realize this is a tough concept for statists to appreciate.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. jaba (2,146 comments) says:

    just heard Shearer suggest John Key shouldn’t call an early election over the water right issue in relation to partial asset sales. This was an opportunity for Shearer to stand up and challenge Key to call for an election to give his refreshed team a go

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    You’re the one who doesn’t get it.

    Yes, it only affects a small minority. That’s one of the key points – it doesn’t affect the rest of us. So if we expand the right to get married to a few more people it won’t hurt most of us and it gives some people an option they’d like to have as well.

    PG, Actually it does affect everyone, because marriage affects everyone in society because society is built on the institution of marriage. Family is the building block of society and anything that aids in the destruction of family helps destroy society.

    You may not have the foresight to see it, but it ultimately does affect you and everyone else, married or not. The effects of it will ripple out, just like from a stone thrown into a pond.

    Just look at what happened to the ancient Roman civilization. They were so powerful that no one could even touch them militarily, but they destroyed themselves from the inside-out – moral decay always precedes the actual fall of a civilization.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Fletch, so you say it was only after Rome adopted Christianity as an imperial religion of the state that their moral decay caused their downfall. In actual history Rome was becoming more prudish before it adopted Christianity – one preceded the other.

    The weakness of Rome was

    1. insecure borders
    2. resort to a paid army – they did not become an empire with a mercenary army
    3. economic difficulty arising from 1 and 2.
    4. the myth of Rome was exposed by its reliance on foreign soldiers and its economic difficulty.

    In earlier times the legions were capable of conquering Rome but they and their Generals were loyal Roman citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    This sums it all up for me….

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wqvcpc03nsys3ym/Sense.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    Dr. Carle Zimmerman from Harvard wrote a book in 1947 in which he researched the different roles that marriage played in different historical periods.  He wanted to find out if there was a correlation between the health of a nation and the health of the family.  His book is called “Family and Civilization”.

    He found that there are three basic patterns to families.  One pattern is always dominant in a developing nation, the second pattern always dominates in a thriving nation, and the third pattern always dominates in a nation in decline.

    He found a direct correlation between the health of the family and the health of a nation.  He said that you can predict exactly where a nation is in its life cycle just by studying the family. 

    According to this research, eight specific patterns of domestic behaviour have signalled the downward spiral and imminent demise of every culture:

    * Marriage lost its sacredness; it was frequently broken by divorce.

    * Traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony was lost. Alternate forms and definitions of marriage arose, and traditional marriage vows were replaced by individual marriage contracts.

    * Feminist movements appeared, and women lost interest in child bearing and mothering, preferring to pursue power and influence.

    * Public disrespect for parents and authority in general increased.

    * Juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, and rebellion accelerated

    * People with traditional marriages refused to accept family responsibilities.

    * Desire for and acceptance of adultery grew.

    * Increased tolerance for sexual perversions of all kinds, particularly homosexuality, with a resultant increase in sex-related crimes.

    http://www.amazon.com/Family-Civilization-Prof-Carle-Zimmerman/dp/1933859377

    Sound like any culture that we know?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. cha (4,081 comments) says:

    Just look at what happened to the ancient Roman civilization

    Yup, Frank was onto something when he said beware the fish people, they are the true enemy because they certainly fucked a perfectly good empire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Fletch, in what past civilisations did feminist movements appear?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Fletch, in what past civilisations did feminist movements appear?

    Russian communism. And what a kind, benevolent, beneficial “civilisation” that was. Wasn’t it.

    As for the reason why its migrated to the democratic West – draw your own conclusion.

    Hint: it’s not “because it’s about human wights and we’re vewy vewy advanced and pwogwessive here in the West.”

    No.

    It’s not about that, at all.

    That’s one of the key points – it doesn’t affect the rest of us.

    So you got no kids Pete? That’s who it affects. Proud of yourself?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Fletch, the reviews of the book are worth a read.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    wied, the book only covered ancient Greece and Rome – it supposedly showed the rise and fall of past civilisation to some similar pattern – thus Soviet Union could not be included. I suppose you are one of the savethemales (Henry Makow) disciples.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    the book only covered ancient Greece and Rome – thus Soviet Union could not be included

    How convenient.

    I suppose you are one of the savethemales (Henry Makow) disciples.

    Who?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. cha (4,081 comments) says:

    Fletch is a disciple of David Barton.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    cha

    You could be onto something. :)

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gp7gdgoh8vff0tc/fish.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Sofia (867 comments) says:

    Why will a few same sex marriages do more to destroy the fabric of society than the present downfall of couples in that only two thirds of UK children have two parents present in their lives, and here in New Zealand a quarter of children are from one parent families?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Viking2 (11,569 comments) says:

    Well GD was its usual disaster today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. cha (4,081 comments) says:

    Very good nasska.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Why will a few same sex marriages do more to destroy the fabric of society than the present downfall of couples in that only two thirds of UK children have two parents present in their lives, and here in New Zealand a quarter of children are from one parent families?

    It’s another parameter in the same equation, Sofia. But its a very important parameter, since it deals with the label. And the label is not a word, it’s the brand. And if brand isn’t important, how come Microsoft and IBM and any corporate, spends billions on every single year and puts it on its balance sheet.

    Those who don’t understand social engineering think it’s just a word, and they also think because it doesn’t affect them or their marriage, that therefore, ergo, ipso facto, it’s not a big deal.

    Which is what they want you to think.

    But if you do understand social engineering, and it’s not hard if you care to educate yourself, then you know, this is precisely why there’s a global campaign, not just a local campaign, throughout the Western world, specifically to capture the brand this single word.

    Those who think might ask themselves, just why there is such a global campaign, over this single word. If it wasn’t important and it really is just a word.

    And in case you’re wondering, the word isn’t marriage, it’s what it connotes in people’s mind: i.e. why a brand like IBM is on the balance sheet at billions of dollars. It’s not because it’s an initialism standing for International Business Machines. It’s because when people see it or hear it they immediately conjure up a mental image. That’s what the value is. And with marriage, guess what people immediately conjure up: that’s right. Family, children, commitment, fidelity, all those good things. That all changes, if all of a sudden, marriage is associated with other “values” just precisely exactly the same way it would change if IBM teamed up with some tinpot Chinese PC maker who built crap products and swore at their customers when they dared to call the help line. IBM wouldn’t do that in a million years. But apparently, lots of extraordinarily useless moron idiots, don’t see anything wrong with treating the marriage brand, in precisely exactly the same way.

    Isn’t that dumb of them.

    And they’re not going to suffer, it’s their kids and their grandkids who will experience the slow and subtle change over the decades as marriage becomes nothing more than a casual meaningless commitment that is no more significant in the wider context of someone’s overall life than a drunken 21st party.

    That’s the plan. And it’s proceeding apace isn’t it. All wrapped up in its “human wights” envelope. Lest the useless moron idiots get wind of it before it’s all too late.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    http://anongallery.org/6313/flying-fk

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    That clown Morgan ought to be happy now

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10867893

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Scott (1,818 comments) says:

    Agree with the above about getting sick of gay marriage on general debate. Especially since its such a minor thing that won’t affect my marriage and the world will just go as before and the sky won’t fall etc.
    Well here’s my idea. Why don’t we drop the whole thing? We can all talk about something else? And if John Key believes in it so much then he can take it to the country at the next general election. National the party of gayness. We can out gay the Labour party. Also gay adoption as well? Let’s see how John Key and his party get on with that in his election manifesto?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    People are presumed innocent without evidence to the contrary.

    In this country the state does not presume that people are innocent of all aspects of the charges, specifically the aspect of obligation to the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    Scientists have finally discovered why the World didn’t end last December.

    The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse had nothing to ride on thanks to the UK’s Beef Industry.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    I see the Muslims are trying to get a book removed from publication that describes their terrorist training camps inside the U.S.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    nasska (5,742) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 8:00 pm
    Scientists have finally discovered why the World didn’t end last December.
    ——————————————-

    But can they prove it, and what do the conspiracy theorists say?

    Are you sure we are not just in some sort of altered reality, and humankind actually ceased to exist in the physical sense, last December?

    I wouldn’t trust those scientists – I think they are playing mind games.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Sofia (867 comments) says:

    Reid – And in case you’re wondering, the word isn’t marriage, it’s what it connotes in people’s mind … It’s because when people see it or hear it they immediately conjure up a mental image. That’s what the value is. And with marriage, guess what people immediately conjure up: that’s right. Family, children, commitment, fidelity, all those good things.

    The point was that for roughly 33% in the UK and 25% here in New Zealand the word and it’s connotations are already fucked – but no one has really pointed that out.

    For you, Reid, to be right, it is the argument about gay marriage and its acceptance that will destroy society, rather than the actual event itself or any numbers involved – a little like “dehumanising” by a further degree all woman beneficiaries in offering them free contraception [which was already available] and not bothering to find out later that only 7 or so took the offer up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    wreck1080 (2,686) Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 5:31 pm
    John Key thinks a high dollar is good then?…

    Yes, and when it drops, John Key will think the low dollar is good. He’s an agreeable kind of guy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    Judith

    Interesting thought, though I generally trust scientists…..it’s only the climate variety that I consider to be a bit sus.

    I do recall sitting on the floor along with about twenty others one night at a at a mate’s flat in the late sixties. We were trolleyed on weak pot & flagon beer, listening to Bob Dylan LPs & engaged in deep & meaningful discussions over whether we were the figment of someone else’s imagination.

    I can’t remember any meaningful answers resulting from those debates either. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    I suspect you are a figment in my imagination nasska. I shall have another gin and consider that postulation! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    I await the results of your deliberations with feelings of unease JB. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    The point was that for roughly 33% in the UK and 25% here in New Zealand the word and it’s connotations are already fucked – but no one has really pointed that out.

    So your argument is that because since the sixties, when feminism got started on it, the marriage brand as it now is today is damaged, therefore it’s not worth saving?

    That’s a pretty dumb argument Sofia.

    Perhaps you should look at what happened to Apple, in its “wilderness years” before Jobs took back the helm.

    But that’s trivial, by comparison to marriage.

    However, good to see you didn’t address any of the substantive points I made. You can’t really, can you. It’s very simple, isn’t it.

    Only useless idiots morons don’t get it. Perhaps it’s all that weeping and wailing and rending their clothes, over the humanity of it all.

    Too bad the same useless idiot morons don’t think about their own kids isn’t it, when they’re thinking about “the humanity.”

    But that would require an IQ above room temperature wouldn’t it. Perhaps that’s why there’s such a high level of useless moron idiocy surrounding this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    If you are non-woolly you need not fear me nasska. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Andrei, can you give a sound reason why a gay couple who wish to get married should be denied that legal right?

    pete, Can you give me a sound reason why two siblings who wish to get married should be denied that legal right?

    Can you give a sound reason why three people who wish to get married should be denied that legal right?

    Can you give a sound reason why [insert relationship combination of your choice] who wish to get married should be denied that legal right?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Today poofters. Tomorrow sheep! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    Ever been a problem for you JB? :)

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/khtqol9wguz14cu/Sheep%202.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    krazykiwi

    It is my fervent & sincere wish that the Marriage Act should be altered to cater for your “special” perversions that you so graphically listed.

    Anything so long as it doesn’t scare the horses. * :)

    *With acknowledgement & thanks to the late Trevor DeCleene.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Would this scare horses nasska? It sure scares me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    My guess is that it would scare them witless or excite them into a mating frenzy Reid. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    My guess is that it would scare them witless or excite them into a mating frenzy Reid.

    I was wondering if we could get hold of it for the next Kaimanua round-up around the desert road. I imagine those horses would simply gallop into the waiting arms of the nearest roustabout at first sight. Probably paw them to death trying to madly get away.

    Plus there might be an amusing “accident” with the odd stray shell.

    What a twagedy!

    An national international calamity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    ….”An national international calamity.”…..

    A tragedy, keep it from the children & declare a day of national mourning. Fortunately we have a senior representative to take our case to the UN……Oh wait! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Anything so long as it doesn’t scare the horses

    Johnboy waiting patiently at the altar in a veil would scare ‘em :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Sofia (867 comments) says:

    Reid – So your argument is that because since the sixties, when feminism got started on it, the marriage brand as it now is today is damaged, therefore it’s not worth saving?
    That’s a pretty dumb argument Sofia.

    It may be a dumb argument, Reid, if I was making it.
    I was simply saying the marriage brand is somewhat fucked now

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

    Euro debt crisis looms again as Italians defy EU austerity demands

    The eurozone’s debt crisis strategy was in chaos on Monday night after anti-austerity parties appeared on track to win a majority of seats in the Italian parliament, vastly complicating efforts to forge a government able to carry through EU-imposed reforms.

    In an earthquake result, the Five Star protest movement of comedian Beppe Grillo looked likely to emerge as the biggest single party in the lower house. The scourge of bankers and corrupt elites, Mr Grillo has campaigned for a return to the lira and a restructuring of Italy’s €1.9 trillion (£1.64 trillion) public debt.

    The conservative bloc of ex-premier Silvio Berlusconi looked poised to win the senate, coming back from the political grave with vows to rip up the EU’s austerity plans and push through tax cuts to pull Italy out of deep slump.

    “The majority of Italians have clearly voted against the Brussels consensus. That is a damning indictment,” said Mats Persson from Open Europe.

    I still have a few Italian Lira lying around …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    Fuck this Mr Dunne
    No new enforcement officers with police like powers of search and seizure.
    This is a example of the long and slippery slope towards fascism.
    WTF are you thinking?
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0100/latest/whole.html
    Subpart 3 Enforcement
    Enforcement officers
    Clause 68 enables the Authority to appoint enforcement officers to enforce the provisions of the Bill.

    The police are the proper authority to deal with law breakers. There is no need for extending police powers to a new standalone branch of law enforcement.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    On fascism. what do you call this?
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0226/1224330517803.html

    This was our Great Purge, our way of establishing religious, social and moral “purity” by locking up and “correcting” potential deviants. This level of “coercive confinement” is extreme for any democratic society. In 1931, the Soviet gulag held about 200,000 prisoners – from a population of 165 million.

    The Irish system held 31,000 people – from a population of three million.

    I am not, I should stress, comparing the two systems directly or suggesting that Ireland was a totalitarian dictatorship – merely trying to give some sense of the relative scale of the operation.

    Relative indeed
    One had Communism to blame.
    The other that fount of all morality …..the catholic church!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Scott (1,818 comments) says:

    Griff my dear chap, you have been blogging on this topic, hating the Catholic Church since 11 a.m.
    Having a quick read of that article it just seems very strange. Was the Irish population incarcerated? I thought many of those places were institutions set up by the church for orphans? It just seems a very strange article written by a person of the far left to be honest.

    Regarding the comparison with the Soviet Gulag – apparently they were only begun in 1930. So yes one year later they had only 200,000 prisoners. But by the beginning of World War II they had over 1 million and Stalin busily expanded that number after World War II. So there is no comparison between what happened in Ireland and what happened in the soviet union. And there is the small detail that they were worked to death in the Gulag and shot in the Gulag and tortured in the Gulag systematically. Apparently something like one third of prisoners died under the Soviet system.

    And let’s not forget communism was to blame. But the religious position that underpins communism is atheism. So we could say that because of atheism millions of people were imprisoned in the Soviet Gulag and hundreds of thousands, if not millions died.

    If Russia had remained Christian then nothing like the scale of imprisonments and massacres would have occurred. The secret police under the Russians Tsar were amateurs in comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. kowtow (8,774 comments) says:

    scott

    Ireland’s liberal elites have turned their attention to the Church and it’s scandals. While not denying these terrible things happened it is now fashionable to highlight how “liberal” one is by taking an anti Church position.

    The point has been well made in the past that these institutions were run by the Church ,on behalf of the state.Arguably practically the whole of Irish society at the time may have a case to answer,not simply the Catholic Church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “Father, why does the school have a rack?”
    “Don’t be alarmed, it’s only for the especially naughty children.”

    http://www.manataka.org/page1315.html

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