The Same Sex Marriage Second Reading

March 14th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Tired and delighted that the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill passed its second reading by 77 votes to 44. That means 64% of MPs voted for it and 36% against. Four MPs swapped from yes to no (Brownlee, McCully, Coleman, McKelvie) and Huo went from abstain/absent to a yes (he explains why here).

I expect that the third reading will be by much the same number. Second reading is the stage where normally some people may shift their vote based on what has happened during the select committee process.

So let’s cover the evening from the beginning. I have to say I really love Parliament when it is debating a conscience issue – you get MPs speaking with passion about what they really believe and think, a massive difference from most bill debates which are relatively pro-forma. It really is Parliament at its best.

Due to the unexpected need to debate the Budget Policy Statement, it was far from clear at the beginning of the day if the marriage bill would conclude its second reading. To do so Parliament had to get through question time, the Budget Policy Statement, a third reading, a committee stage, half a second reading and then the marriage bill second reading.

Few people wanted to have the debate cut in half where it starts yesterday and concludes in two weeks, so with some astute MPs taking shorter calls than they could on earlier debates, the marriage bill debate started just after 8 pm.

The gallery was packed. And I mean packed – there was a queue to get in forming around 7 pm, and they ran out of seats so allowed many to just stand at the back of the public galleries. I wasn’t sure how many were supporters and how many were opponents, but noticed that the vast majority were young Kiwis. This is very rare in the gallery, and great to see.

I may have joked that probably all the women there were lesbians or fundamentalist Christians, which reduced my chances of scoring. A lesbian friend consoled me with the thought that there may be some bisexuals there :-)

There were 12 speakers on the bill. They were in order:

  1. (Lab) – in favour
  2. Tim Macindoe (Nat) against
  3. Ruth Dyson (Lab) – in favour
  4. (Nat) – in favour
  5. Trevor Mallard (Lab) – in favour
  6. Winston Peters (NZF) – against, sought to send to referendum
  7. Kevin Hague (Green) – in favour
  8. Kanwaljit Bakshi (Nat) – against
  9. Lianne Dalziel (Lab) – in favour
  10. Tau Henare (Nat) – in favour
  11. Jan Logie (Green) – in favour
  12. Chester Borrows (Nat) against

There were two common themes in the speeches. The first was that MPs were generally very respectful of the passionate views on this issue. Those in favour spoke of their desire to respect religious views and the safeguards that had been placed in the bill to help with that. Those against spoke of how touching some of the testimony had been, but what their concerns were with the change. There was, for the main part, no name calling or insinuations about motives. It was a good debate.

The second theme was about how the communications from some of those oppossed to the bill had not helped their cause – and that came from MPs who were against the bill. There was a strong message there.

The draft Hansard is here. I could quote and critique every speech, but will just touch on a couple. Tim Macindoe said:

A common theme of many emails from the bill’s supporters, given that my Christian faith was and remains the main reason for my position, was that ours is a secular society and my faith should be left out of the debate. I understand that view but in matters of conscience one must fall back on firm foundations. To ignore what I perceive to be God’s will in this debate would therefore be unthinkable, even though I acknowledge that not all Christians think as one in this matter and I agree with Glyn Carpenter in the New Zealand Christian Network that Christians must approach this matter graciously and with respect.

It’s good that Tim was explicit that he voted against because he thinks it goes against God’s will. The question for me is whether what some people interpret to be God’s will should be a reason to impose that view through legislation. That is a slippery slope that leads to (for example) sharia law in some countries, based on what their MPs think is God’s will. Until such a time as God speaks for himself on such issues, I can’t agree with laws based on God’s will.

Last year I indicated that a principal reason for my opposition was my concern that Parliament is moving ahead of the churches on this issue.

If Parliament didn’t move ahead of churches on various issues, we’d be in the dark ages. The churches wanted homosexuality to effectively remain a criminal offence. The 1986 law change was well ahead of the churches – yet almost no one today says that law change was wrong.

The best speech of the night was National MP Chris Auchinvole. I’ve embedded the speech below and recommend it highly for a great listen. Just as Paul Hutchison was the stand out of the first reading, Auchie was the stand out of the second reading. Interestingly while generally support for allowing is greater amongst younegr New Zealanders and less so amongst over 60s, it is worth noting Hutch is 65 and Auchie 67.

A couple of quotes:

Although I cannot imagine, if the bill passes, that a particularly large percentage of the population will suddenly take the opportunity to engage in same-gender marriages, I also cannot imagine that any number would make one iota of difference to the 41 years of marriage that my wife and I have enjoyed, or to anybody else’s heterosexual marriage. I cannot see it. I have thought deeply about this and cannot believe that the social impact of the bill would herald the demise and collapse of the wider societal values in New Zealand. I respect the right of those who wish to hold to that view, but I cannot give it currency in coming to a defined position on this bill.

Having a few more married couples in New Zealand will be good for society in my view!

Another grouping held a perception that this is counter to religious views and practices and represents State interference in religious practice, beliefs, and dogma. The select committee listened very carefully and sincerely to the concerns expressed. As someone who had 5 years as a lay minister for the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa / New Zealand and was a member of the council of assembly for the Presbyterian Church, I had a particular interest in this aspect of the discussion. It became clear through listening that the overriding concern is that the clergy and those authorised by religious bodies to conduct marriages would be obliged—indeed, forced—to conduct ceremonies for same-gender couples should the bill be passed.

And the amendments make clear this can not happen.

The third consideration—we have heard it spoken by my colleague and friend Tim Macindoe this evening—is that marriage is an institution: time honoured, never changing, and having the essential components of one man and one woman common to all countries and civilisations throughout the millennia until death do them part.

It ain’t necessarily so. I am privileged to have my wife in the gallery tonight. My wife and I married on 11 March, 41 years ago last Monday, and lived happily ever after. But the question that exercises the upper echelons of ecclesiastic minds in those days was whether or not the bride should take a vow of obedience to her husband. If you are marrying a red-headed West Coast girl from a West Coast aristocratic family, some hope. During that same time, to have children born out of wedlock was a hamper to church marriage, as was a divorce, or indeed wanting to marry someone of a different religion. Banns of marriage were called from pulpits, advising that people were intending marriage, and others were invited to give reasons why that marriage should not proceed or to forever hold their peace. Marriage is not an unchanging institution, and although most of its institutional aspects have been laudable for men, they have often been less than favourable for women.

And other speakers touched on how just a few decades ago some states in the US banned inter-racial marriage.

The last two aspects I wish to touch on are the matter of conscience and the question of family coming first. In terms of conscience, I have given much, much thought to this. I am acquainted with guilt. Being a Presbyterian, one goes through life thinking that one has not worked hard enough, has not done enough, and has not reached the requirement that life’s opportunities offer, and you will always get other members who will tell you that, as one did this evening. To assuage my conscience on this issue, I delved back in my life to the age of understanding, which I think those of Catholic persuasion tell me the Jesuits determine it is at 7 years old, when I was a boy. I looked at catechismic values—learning the catechism by rote in Glasgow: “Who made you? God made me. Why did God make you? God made me to know him and love him.” The third question: “What image did God make you in?” The answer: “God made me in his own image.” Every 7-year-old boy and girl said the same, and believed it was true. They did not have to add: “as long as I conform to being heterosexual, and not to loving anyone of the same gender as myself.” My conscience is very clear on this issue. Every person has the same spiritual claim as one another, to being made in the image of God, and it will take a braver person than I am to deny that.

Wonderfully said.

So, in dealing with the legacy of discriminatory prejudice, and I would not want that to be a deciding feature, I prayerfully ask to be able to internalise and resolve this complicated situation in my head, in my heart, and in my soul.

Heh.

What I learnt from listening to the submissions, colleagues, was that in fact each homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender person appearing before us was not to be seen just as an individual, not to be identified just by gender preference, but in fact seen as a mother’s son or a daughter, and a father’s daughter or son, as siblings to their brothers and sisters, grandchildren to their grandparents, nephews and nieces to their uncles and aunts, and uncles and aunts to their nephews and nieces, and cousins to their cousins. They are all family, along with their heterosexual friends and relations, and all are an integral part of the New Zealand family, and all are part—in my mind, in my heart, and in my conscience—of God’s family. I now realise that this bill seeks to put first something that critics have accused it of undermining, and that isempt to b the family. We as parliamentarians should not simply look past the interests of the applicants for this bill. We should not simply look at their interests. We should, and we must, look after their interests. We should pass this bill.

I’m so glad I was in the House (galleries) for this speech. Television doesn’t do justice to the atmosphere. The sympathetic nods from around the House, the claps and smiles, the laughter, the intense interest. It was again my favourite speech of the night.

One saw this also with the next speech by Winston Peters. As he was calling for a referendum, he railed against “politicians who think they know best” and said “There is nothing more odious, more loathsome, than politicians who think they know best”. What wouldn’t have been captured by cameras is that there was spontaneous laughter from almost the entire public galleries as Winston was railing against politicians who think they know best, as it was self-evident to everyone that Winston is of course the classic politician who always thinks he knows best. The laughter wasn’t deliberate or an attempt to be disrespectful – it was just a spontaneous outbreak as his speech almost became self-parody unwittingly.

Anyway we got to the votes at around 9.45 pm. There were actually three votes. They were:

  1. To accept the select committee report and proposed amendments.
  2. Winston’s amendment to the second reading motion proposing a referendum at the next general election in place of reading the bill a second time.
  3. The motion that the bill be read a second time and proceed

The first vote passed 66 to 21. I think the whips may have been unaware that there are always two distinct votes at second readings and they only had proxy votes to cover the second reading vote but not to cover the accept the select committee report vote.

The amendment by Peters for a referendum went down 33 to 83. It was an interesting quirk of standing orders that while you can not amend a bill at second reading, you can amend the motion for it to pass its second reading.

The final vote was the key one, and the Assistant Speaker announced it passed 77-44. There was a round of applause but fairly muted as the galleries had been warned not to participate in the business of the House. However once the House was adjourned the entire public galleries rose spontaneously to give a sustained standing ovation to the House and MPs. It was quite electric, and I suddenly realised as I looked around the galleries that I think every single person there was in fact a supporter of the bill as they were all standing and applauding.

Afterwards had a great time celebrating, which David Cunliffe had fun facebooking photos of :-)

Got to sleep around 2.30 am.  Will finish this post with a quote from Chester Borrows who in fact voted against the bill. But he made a good point:

As a Christian—a conservative Christian—I find it abhorrent the way that Christians have entered into this debate, and the threatening nature with which they have emailed colleagues. I know of colleagues who have set out thinking they will vote against this bill and who have changed their mind because of the way they have been treated by Christians, supposedly worshipping in their daily lives and witness a loving God. If they profess to worship that God, then it is a different God whom I worship and whom I believe in, because they have shown nothing of that love—that all-encompassing love—in the way that they have conducted themselves in this debate. It is unfortunate that in every debate where fundamentalist Christians get involved in lobbying one side or another, they always bring out the worst, and seek to have those people who do not hold to our faith shove us into a pigeon-hole that would brand us all in the same way. I think that is a despicable way for people of faith to behave.

I know a number of MPs whose support for the bill was lukewarm, but they became more staunch in support of the bill due to some of the appalling e-mails they got from some opponents.

Luckily it will hopefully all be over in April.

Tags: , ,

238 Responses to “The Same Sex Marriage Second Reading”

  1. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    Tony Ryall- about the only National MP who shouldn’t be dumped for being no different to Labour.

    We are ruled by a coalition of Progressives in National and Labour who only compete upon the basis of who can do socialism better.

    Vote Conservative Party- you may not agree with every policy they have but someone has to give these unrepresentative ivory tower National Party progressives a shake up.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Having a few more married couples in New Zealand will be good for society in my view!

    It will certainly add to the number of divorces. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    This from the Australian talking about the debate in Britain on this issue. I think this article sums up “gay marriage” pretty well
    The Australian 11 Feb 2013
    Has there ever been a weirder political issue than gay marriage? A cool-headed look back at events in Britain last week, where David Cameron’s gay marriage bill was passed in the House of Commons, suggests, no, there hasn’t been. Think about it. Here we have politicians who have little commitment to the idea of rights (Cameron’s Tories) offering to expand marriage rights to people who have never traditionally wanted to get married (gays), and they have been cheered on by liberal commentators who think marriage is a naff institution (“Marriage is no more than a mystical word,” said one fulsomely pro-gay marriage columnist on the day of the Commons vote).
    And yet all of this political freakiness, this bonkers expansion of marriage by those who don’t much care for it to those have never needed it, is treated as perfectly normal by observers.
    More than that, it is depicted as a glorious moment in human history, on a par with blacks in America winning civil rights or women getting the vote. Has the world gone mad? I hope so, because otherwise I definitely have.
    Nothing in Britain’s gay marriage debate adds up. For example, we’re told the passing of the gay marriage bill is an historic victory for the brave gay activists who despite being mocked as perverts and poofs took part in London’s first gay pride parades in the 1970s.
    Yet this fantastically overlooks the fact that those marchers denounced marriage and the family as “patriarchal prisons” that “enslave women, gays and children”.
    For all the harebrained attempts to doll up the passing of the marriage bill as the endpoint to 50 years of gay agitation, the truth is early gay radicals campaigned against marriage, not for it.
    Marriage is a “rotten, oppressive institution”, said the 1970 Gay Manifesto. Homosexuals are “in revolt against the nuclear family structure”, said the influential Gay is Good tract of 1972.

    … Gay marriage is an entirely invented issue, magicked up by a morally bereft political class desperate to appear meaningful, purposeful. So now they congratulate themselves for having made history while ordinary Brits look on in bamboozlement, decidedly unconvinced that history has happened or that our aloof, principle-lite rulers are the new Rosa Parks.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/gay-marriage-a-feelgood-fight-for-issues-lite-elite/story-e6frgd0x-1226574895008

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    The train of progressivism (with a happy DPF and most of Labour lite on board) moves along at a faster speed.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Kenny (18 comments) says:

    So nobody received vile and threatening emails form the gay lobby? Nobody received death threats from supporters of the bill? Anti-gay marriage websites weren’t hacked??

    DREAM ON!

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mandk (1,032 comments) says:

    Now, about those 17,000 or so pre-born babies every year denied their human rights by abortion ….

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. hinamanu (1,068 comments) says:

    The future of generations of children will be completely compromised and destabilised horrendously because of gay parents who can’t keep faithful sustained relationships and whose relationships are barely lucky to last two years.

    Gay tryanny and state tyranny and destroyed young lives are the outcome

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    You may joke about Winston as a politician who thinks he knows best but I say that applies much more so to the politicians who think they have a superior conscience when it fact most of them would have a conscience on par with used car salespeople and voted against a referendum.

    http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/17506

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It’s worth remembering that a consenting adult male cannot marry his:

    (1) grandmother
    (2) grandfather’s wife
    (3) wife’s grandmother
    (4) father’s sister
    (5) mother’s sister
    (6) mother
    (7) stepmother
    (8) wife’s mother
    (9) daughter
    (10) wife’s daughter
    (11) son’s wife
    (12) sister
    (13) son’s daughter
    (14) daughter’s daughter
    (15) son’s son’s wife
    (16) daughter’s son’s wife
    (17) wife’s son’s daughter
    (18) wife’s daughter’s daughter
    (19) brother’s daughter
    (20) sister’s daughter

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. iMP (2,456 comments) says:

    Good post DPF. More here: http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/2nd-reading-marriage-bill-the-votes-discussion/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    It is unfortunate that in every debate where fundamentalist Christians get involved in lobbying one side or another, they always bring out the worst, and seek to have those people who do not hold to our faith shove us into a pigeon-hole that would brand us all in the same way. I think that is a despicable way for people of faith to behave.

    Well said Chester.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    I know a number of MPs whose support for the bill was lukewarm, but they became more staunch in support of the bill due to some of the appalling e-mails they got from some opponents.

    Sadly, I have no doubt whatsoever as to the truth of the assertion. These issues do bring out the fringe, and this one even more than usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. gump (1,684 comments) says:

    @mandk

    Could you please explain the logical connection you’re trying to make between gay marriage and abortion?

    I’m fairly certain that extending marriage rights to gay couples will not change the number of abortions in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Carlos (683 comments) says:

    @ Redbaiter

    I gave my party vote to the Conservative Party last time. Even though many after the election claimed it was a wasted vote, I don’t think so. 2.6% was pretty impressive for a newly formed party beating some of the other smaller parties in parliament in the number of votes received. I think they’re on the political opinion polls, even though they’re not in parliament because of all those voters who voted for them.

    It will be close, but I think the Conservative Party may just make the 5% threshold next time. Especially with National’s lack of viable partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    gump, I think the point is that parliment’s time would be better spent granting the right to life to thousands of unborns, since this would actually make a difference in their lives, rather than spending time granting the right for a civil union to be called a marriage since for the few people who will use it it will actually make almost no difference whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Manolo

    I think you used the wrong stock reply macro. This was a conscience vote on an opposition member’s Bill. It isn’t a Bill promoted by the Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    The question for me is whether what some people interpret to be God’s will should be a reason to impose that view through legislation.

    Why shoudn’t it be a reason? Why should people who vote on religious principle be seen as undesirable while those who vote on the fashion of the day be seen as desirable?

    Seems we’re on a slippery slope all right – towards removing religious freedoms on the excuse that the alternative is Afghanistan.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    But the government is supposed to govern. This is a huge change that people like DPF have campaigned for every day on his blog. The government under John Key has allowed this legislation to pass. He is the Prime Minister. He was elected to govern – the passage or not of this legislation was entirely under his control. He said he would support gay marriage and so it is coming to pass.

    To me this is a major betrayal of the electorate by a national government that promised it would concentrate on the important issues facing the New Zealand people – getting the economy moving and getting people back to work. They said that they were not interested in social engineering and the mandate they have received over the last 2 elections can also be seen to be a rejection of the social engineering of the previous Labour government.

    National did not campaign on this. If John Key had said before the last election, gay marriage and gay adoption and euthanasia are likely to be introduced into the Parliament during the next term and I will be voting for them, it is very unlikely he would be Prime Minister today.

    So the government did not campaign on this and there is no electoral mandate for it. It has not been the subject of a referendum. Kevin Hague in a public meeting on this issue explicitly said that minorities don’t do well in referendums. This was an admission that if gay marriage went to a referendum it would be rejected by the New Zealand public.

    However it is not too late and I urge the Parliament of this country to vote against this legislation at its 3rd reading. Let it be the subject of a referendum or let the various parties put it in their manifesto at the next election. Let the New Zealand public actually decide on this groundbreaking radical piece of legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    ” It isn’t a Bill promoted by the Government.”

    No, it is a bill promoted by John Key. I hope people remember this at election time.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    thedavincimode: Perhaps you’re the bigger user of stock reply macros. Manolo said not one word about this being a government bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    gump

    mandk’s point goes to the fact that this is trumpeted as an issue of basic human rights: the right to be “married” (I wasn’t aware such a right existed but apparantly it does because they said so.) Legislation passed on this basis doesn’t sit comfortably with legislation that does not protect a rather more fundamental right; the right to life. But it is doubtful that the original propopents of this Bill are particularly concerned at that ethical and moral conflict.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. lazza (401 comments) says:

    Is there a (names of those who voted … not) list of the votes for and against pse?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    scrubbers

    Quite right. It’s this new keyboard. It was always just Ctrl+M and bingo, out she popped!

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

    No, it is a bill promoted by John Key. I hope people remember this at election time.

    I am certain they will.
    But not in the manner and consequence that you are hoping for, Chucky.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    A sad sign of a Nation that has lost its way as its slides into decline.

    If you don’t encourage people to raise their own families you’re finished as a people, not immediately but in the long term

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    reddy

    Looking forward to the Conservatives’ economic policy. Can we expect it some time in 2018? Didn’t see it last time so I just assumed that the dog ate it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    Why should people who vote on religious principle be seen as undesirable

    This is why human and civil rights trump democratic votes. It stops the morally defective from imposing their bigotry on others.

    Two gay people getting married won’t hurt anyone else in the slightest, and all the laughable, trumped-up hysterics here about it being the end of the world won’t change that fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. BeaB (2,164 comments) says:

    I am so glad I wasn’t there.
    You would think they were passing some stunning social legislation like the abolition of slavery instead of a minor change that will allow gays to dress up, have a party and ape the very people they used to pride themselves on being different from.
    The homosexual law reform was truly groundbreaking. This one is just a ‘me too’ change in the law that will affect hardly anybody, gays included.
    But I guess if you want to congratulate yourself and feel you have courageously been part of a great social change, carry on.
    I just wish we heard some of that stirring oratory on issues that matter to most of us like jobs, education, the economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    This is why human and civil rights trump democratic votes. It stops the morally defective from imposing their bigotry on others.

    The fact that you don’t see that from other’s prespective this is what happened last night speaks volumes.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mandk (1,032 comments) says:

    Gump @11.27,
    the davincemode and scrubone have answered your question to me admirably

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    I can’t imagine what Chester Borrows was talking about! :lol:

    Eat a dick homophobes.

    That’s all you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Two gay people getting married won’t hurt anyone else …

    Actually I think there’s at least fifty who are considering getting married, not two. But you’re right – very few will use the legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    I can’t imagine what Chester Borrows was talking about!

    Eat a dick homophobes.

    So… this is your attempt to claim the moral high ground, or are you being deliberatly ironic?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    Offended davinci, I never said it was a government bill.

    What I said is that your party and a great majority of Labour lite MPs are part of the progressive movement (some of the parlamentarians would not have the faintest idea, but vote as they are told!)

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

    Yes sorry manolo. Do you think it’s part of some secret plot?

    [re-assigned to Ctrl+M]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    The fact that you don’t see that from other’s prespective this is what happened last night speaks volumes.

    Their “perspective” is completely irrelevant. If they can’t put forward a valid argument about how gay marriage tangibly hurts other people then they should just keep quiet and vote in favour. We are not their serfs to be ordered around as they see fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hinamanu (1,068 comments) says:

    Homosexuality is about swimming in a sewer.

    The lives of countless generations of children will be completely compromised by gays who can’t keep long standing faithful relationships and will result in the dysfunction and degeneracy of millions of children who will be abandoned, unloved and betrayed by a political and gay conspiracy.

    Not to mention marriage celebrants and pastors whop will be fined and jailed for their spiritual convictions by gays who will purposely seek them out to deliberately sabotage their lives as is happening already internationally.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (23,814 comments) says:

    Labour MP Raymond Huo was the only MP not to vote at the first reading. He voted for the bill last night. He has posted this at Red Alert:

    To those who have accused me of sitting on the fence at the Bill’s first reading, I say to them they were right. Because I was torn between two extreme and opposing views, and I found both views to be very convincing. I therefore decided not to vote at the Bill’s first reading.

    Following steps of a rather informal consultation with my fellow Asian constituents, and also constituents of wider communities, I’ve now decided to vote in favour of this Bill, for the following reasons:

    Firstly, I would like to quote David Do, who is New Zealand born, but of Chinese-Vietnamese descent. He told the Parliamentary Select Committee that it was wrong to simply imagine Kiwis of European descent supported gay marriage, while those of Asian or Pacific background opposed it. He said many people within immigrant families supported gay marriage, but could not speak out. And he went on to say, and I quote:

    “At least one thing that obviously unites the diverse Asian community is a desire to live free from discrimination, and to ensure everyone, regardless of their background, has the equal opportunity to succeed and live free lives.”

    I believe it is very important for KiwiAsians to be informed, to be aware of the issues, so they can be knowledgeable participants in our democratic process. To be an informed participant, no matter how strongly they feel about the Bill – either for or against it – the decision is theirs and their decision should be respected.

    To that extent I would like to thank Louisa Wall, Charles Chauvel and Asian Rainbow Community members especially David Do and Wai Ho for having their opinion pieces translated and published in the Asian media and having their voice heard. Because it is important that when, as a society, we make these far-reaching decisions, we also make sure that all the voices, and all the views, are heard in open dialogue.

    Had I not followed such process and read some of the submissions from both sides, I would not be able to make up my mind now.

    Secondly, we must look at how opinion on the marriage equality issue around the world is shifting quite rapidly at the moment.

    Recently we have seen either voting in favour, or at least a major shift of opinion, in countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Germany and Ireland. Support in the United States has gone from 25 % in 1996 to 53 % today.

    Just a few weeks ago, our former Speaker, The Right Honorable Dr Lockwood Smith, stated how much he now regretted voting against homosexual law reform. And the Prime Minister John Key was quoted as indirectly indicating that he regrets voting against civil unions – he says he was following his electorate, not his own views.

    Do we want to be on the wrong side of history? I’ve found the following statement is very convincing:

    “In 15 years’ time, new voters especially will struggle to understand how their local MP voted against allowing their friends who are happily married, to get married. It may be a bit like an MP in 1908 explaining to female voters why they were against them having a vote in 1893!”

    As MP Nikki Kaye said in the first reading that New Zealand has a proud history of leading in issues of equality and passing a piece of legislation like this one will strengthen the rights and freedoms of a significant group of New Zealanders.

    And I was also encouraged by Dr Paul Hutchison. At the first reading he spoke of his initial reticence but finally said he had not constructed strong enough intellectual, moral, health or even spiritual arguments against it. In the end it boiled down to the premise that all New Zealanders should have the right to civil marriage, irrespective of race, sex or gender.

    I want to thank Young Labour, Young National and representatives from all other parties in Parliament for their contributions. It is rare and unprecedented that youth representatives from all eight parties in Parliament had come together to show their support for marriage equality.

    Thirdly I want to express my sincere respect to those who remain opposed to this Bill. I want to thank the 204 people who sent letters to me and hundreds of others who emailed me and those who spoke to me about their strong views on why this Bill should not proceed.

    I respect their views, and they can be assured I weighed up the opposing views very carefully. I salute my Labour colleagues Sua William Sio, Ross Robertson and Damien O’Connor for their courage and determination. Isn’t that wonderful that we live in this beautiful country where colleagues and everyone can express their different views and agree to disagree. That’s what democracy is all about!

    I have decided not to sit on the fence because I am convinced that the issue is about equality, justice and human rights. And supporting these values tips the balance in favour of the Bill.

    To conclude, I would like to quote a UK MP, a Conservative MP Nick Herbert:

    “Are the marriages of millions of straight people about to be threatened because a few thousand gay people are permitted to join? Will they say: ‘Darling our marriage is over, because Sir Elton John has just become engaged to David Furnish’?”

    The answer is obviously no. Neither will the institution of marriage become redundant when Lynda Topp marries her fiancée, Donna Luxton. To the contrary, we should be offering them our congratulations because marriage is about love and commitment, and this is the basis of any successful marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. EAD (1,451 comments) says:

    Whilst being in favour in keeping the traditional meaning of marriage, what really sticks in the craw is the complete lack of democracy in this matter. Such a fundamental redefinition of one of civil society’s building blocks should not be decided on the “conscience” of 120 MPs. If not a referendum, then at least put it your party manifesto and let the Electorate decide whether or not they’d like to change. If the Electorate decided after a propaganda free debate (unlikely) that they’d like to change the definition, then 80-90% of the opposition to this would go away.

    New Zealanders better wake up fast and realise that it is we the people who give the government authority to act on our behalf. Unfortunately most see the State as the ultimate authority but if the State is the highest authority, where does the state get that authority from? The people?

    Government laws used to reflect the collective norm and morals of what was a deeply Christian society. Whilst you may or may not be religious (and I’m in the latter), the Ten Commandments served as a pretty agreeable moral framework for determining what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of society and thus the basis for “common law”.

    As Christianity slowly recedes from public life, Individuals who by nature are religious turn to other sources for moral guidance and the Government and green propaganda steps in readily to fill that gap. Once Government starts filling that gap, then you begin a very slippery slope to serfdom and tyranny. Why do you think the first thing all totalitarians do (Nazi’s, Bolsheviks et. all) is ban religion? Why do you think some people are so determined that we should tick the Atheist box in the census?

    WAKE UP – get out of the red team vs. blue team matrix and understand the real choice is freedom or serfdom. Fredric Bastiat wrote about this is 1850 in his book “The Law”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,032) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 11:37 am

    The question for me is whether what some people interpret to be God’s will should be a reason to impose that view through legislation.

    Why shoudn’t it be a reason?

    Because it is irrational. “Because God says so” is not a rational basis for decision making. Everyone has their own ideas about what God says (or doesn’t say) and a society which permits that as a justification for decision making will inevitably result in tyranny where the beliefs of one faction are imposed upon everyone else because, according to them, “God said so”. There simply is no avenue for rational discussion when the basis of someone’s proposal is “God said so”.

    Why should people who vote on religious principle be seen as undesirable while those who vote on the fashion of the day be seen as desirable?

    “Fashion of the day” is an amusing characterization and quite ironic too that mysticism should be seen as “principled” while rational discourse based on things which exist in the real world is considered to be nothing more than “fashion”.

    Seems we’re on a slippery slope all right – towards removing religious freedoms on the excuse that the alternative is Afghanistan.

    Bollocks. If you want to impose upon other people based on your religious beliefs then YOU ARE in principle doing the same thing as they are doing in Afghanistan. Imposing your version of “God said so” on others is NOT “religious freedom”, it is the exact opposite.

    Note that this is not specifically an attack on religion since religion is not the only unfounded belief upon which a person may argue. The point I am trying to make is larger than religion, it is that ANY political objective should, in principle, aim to advance itself based upon real facts. Religion is just a subset of beliefs that are faith-based rather than based on things which are objective and verifiable. Moreover, even if your beliefs have a religious basis you can still advance them on the basis of things which are known to be real. For instance, many arguments against gay marriage revolve around the value of tradition and the supposed threat to children. Regardless of the strength of such arguments at least in principle they follow a rational approach to political discourse in that people can rationally discuss tradition and children as these things exist in the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    hinamanu,

    Making shit up does not constitute a valid argument mate.

    Do you advocate making adultery a crime and making divorce illegal? If you don’t then you are being completely inconsistent. Won’t you please think of the children!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. hinamanu (1,068 comments) says:

    Wat

    An Australian paper has statistically committed to gays not being able to keep relationships for longer than two years.

    Christians are being fined internationally for not accepting gay weddings on their grounds. it’s all online.

    This is the start of the degeneracy of civilisation and our time is financially and morally minimised

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. pearlgal (25 comments) says:

    Marriage was initially established between a man and woman. Why attack the right of this establishment? We have enough confused teenagers who do not know who they are. If marriage was between same genda, then the result of procreation will produce the next generation but hello this is not the case. Why should the gays imposed and encroach their ways on others who don’t share the same views? Those who believe in marriage between a man and a woman have been attacked too! Where is the Human Rights for us who believe in marriage? The fabric of a good society comes a stable and loving family unit. We have enough problems with our children in today’s world because of broken family and the rest of it! And the children do not need more confusion about who they should be when they grow up! I want my rights protected too for what I believe in – marriage between a man and woman!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    EAD (11) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    Such a fundamental redefinition of one of civil society’s building blocks should not be decided on the “conscience” of 120 MPs.

    If it were so fundamental, if it were so important, then I should think the electorate can voice this view come next election. Assuming of course you are not just projecting your own beliefs onto the electorate and assuming that “Everyone is like me”.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. bringbackdemocracy (429 comments) says:

    Another victory for the red labour-blue labour coalition.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Because it is irrational. “Because God says so” is not a rational basis for decision making. Everyone has their own ideas about what God says (or doesn’t say) and a society which permits that as a justification for decision making will inevitably result in tyranny where the beliefs of one faction are imposed upon everyone else because, according to them, “God said so”. There simply is no avenue for rational discussion when the basis of someone’s proposal is “God said so”.

    So your objection is that “different people have different views”. Good grief.

    “Fashion of the day” is an amusing characterization and quite ironic too that mysticism should be seen as “principled” while rational discourse based on things which exist in the real world is considered to be nothing more than “fashion”.

    You’ll have to point me to this rational discourse. We’re talking about gay marriage here for pete’s sake!

    it is that ANY political objective should, in principle, aim to advance itself based upon real facts.

    I believe this was my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Matthew Flannagan (74 comments) says:

    David,
    Again unfortunately we see a superficial treatment of serious issues.

    First you write,
    “It’s good that Tim was explicit that he voted against because he thinks it goes against God’s will. The question for me is whether what some people interpret to be God’s will should be a reason to impose that view through legislation. That is a slippery slope that leads to (for example) sharia law in some countries, based on what their MPs think is God’s will. Until such a time as God speaks for himself on such issues, I can’t agree with laws based on God’s will.”

    This is a flawed argument, First, you employing the kind of slippery slope argument you and others rejected when it was used by opponents of same sex marriage, just as it spurious to argue that simply society will amend marriage one way (to allow homosexual marriage) it follows you will amend it another ( incest), its equally flawed to argue that because society take into consideration one understanding of Gods will, it follows society will take into account another ( like Shariah law) its disengenous to reject slippery slope arguments as invalid when used against your position and affirm them as valid when it supports them.

    Second, one can easily turn this argument against you. For example I could argue that what some people “interpret” to be equality should not reason to impose that through legislation because doing so is a slippery slope that leads to Marxism. Just because some Marxists interpret equality to justify totalarianism no more disqualifies equality as a legitimate consideration, than the fact some interpret Gods law to justify shariah law disqualifies Gods law as a ground for legislation.
    Your welcome to read Christopher Eberle’s book Religious “ Conviction in Liberal Politics” (Cambridge University Press, 2002) which gives a fairly comprehensive philosophical case that religious considerations are valid in liberal democracy and which rebuts the kind of superficial arguments you raise. A summary is available the issues are far more complex than your superficial dismissal maken out. Similarly the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also would give you a more informed take on this question http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-politics/

    You then state

    “It became clear through listening that the overriding concern is that the clergy and those authorised by religious bodies to conduct marriages would be obliged—indeed, forced—to conduct ceremonies for same-gender couples should the bill be passed.And the amendments make clear this can not happen.”

    Actually David as you know that’s not true, the ammendments protect clergy only if they specific denominations recognized by the marriage act, and those organisations have an official stance on Gay marriage. Ministers in denominations where the issue is being debated and there is no official stance are not protected by the wording of the amendment. Celebrants chosen under section 11. 3 ( c ) of the act, who have been appointed because they represent the beliefs of a particular community, are not covered.

    Moreover the select committee did not clarify in the amendment whether sacred spaces which have been made available to the public for wedding ceremonies are protected despite receiving advice from the crown law office to do so. This can all be documented by simply reading the crown law office advice and the amendment itself. In fact the amendment appears to be modelled on the crown law office advice which explicitly recommended that the exemption not apply to all celebrants. Paul Rishworths legal advice also makes it clear parliament knew that they were facing the choice to word the exemption broadly or narrowly and they choose the latter. I don’t know why you and others who claim to be liberals are continually ignoring the facts.

    Its also clear the Presbyterian Churchs concerns related to individuals who are not celebrants and people like school teachers who through their profession may be required to endorse, support, or be part of gay wedding ceremonies in some way which the ammendemnt does not even cover. Both Glyn Carpenter and Stuart Lange explicitly mentioned that in there press release and asked parliament to widen the amendment to cover that. I am sure you read the release so
    again I don’t know why you then continue to pretend these were covered by the amendment you know they weren’t.

    Several years ago I helped the Nats campaign for there freedom rights to dissent from joining political organisations they disagreed with politically. I was told then they believed in freedom of conscience against socialist notions of equality. They have shown they lied, and really care only about themselves. Perhaps in the future the right of non discrimination will mean the Young Nats are again forced to join student unions. Dont harp on about freedom of conscience again when they do, because equality trumps freedom of belief, you have made that very clear.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    So the pigs are standing on 2 legs now.
    Another peice of Orewellian law like the antismacking it acheives nothing other than mind control.
    Politicians who needs them

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Matthew Flannagan (74 comments) says:

    Weihana, everything you said applies to secular moral beliefs as well, which are not empirical verfiable either.

    “Marriage equality, ” is not a rational basis for decision making. Everyone has their own ideas about what equality is, socialists, libertairans, liberal democrats, utilitarians all have different interpretations of equality and a society which permits that as a justification for decision making will inevitably result in tyranny where the beliefs of one faction are imposed upon everyone else because, according to them, “equality demands ”. There simply is no avenue for rational discussion when the basis of someone’s proposal is “ equality

    If you want to impose upon other people based on your beliefs about equality then YOU ARE in principle doing the same thing as they did in the USSR, North Korea and Cuba. Imposing your version of “equality” on others is NOT “freedom”, it is the exact opposite.

    Note that this is not specifically an attack on “marriage equality” since moral beliefs in things like non- discrimination rights is not the only unfounded belief upon which a person may argue. The point I am trying to make is larger than non discrimination rights, it is that ANY political objective should, in principle, aim to advance itself based upon real facts. Belief in the existence of natural rights to not be discriminated against is just a subset of beliefs that are faith-based rather than based on things which are objective and verifiable.

    Try not to engage in special pleading or use arguments that have been well and truly dealt with in the debate on religion and public life debate in the literature. At least be informed.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. pearlgal (25 comments) says:

    Please leave God out of this debate. I got my rights to what I believe as I have experienced and seen enough of what society has become. Counselled enough people to know what affect them not that I claimed that I am expert. It’s like someone having a Ferrari and then another person comes along and swapped the engine with a Mitsubishi engine. Replacing the Ferrari engine with Mitsubishi engine does not make the car ‘Ferrari’.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. LiberalismIsASin (290 comments) says:

    More evil from satans sock puppets.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    hinamanu,

    You didn’t answer the question: Do you advocate making adultery a crime and making divorce illegal?

    You (and MPs) can’t consistently ban gay marriage in the trumped-up name of the children but then say the state will rubber-stamp adultery and divorce.

    And still using your argument, do you favour a marriage ban for Maori, given the proven higher levels of child abuse in Maori homes? Surely any MP who allows Maori to marry is throwing childen under the bus in the name of political correctness.

    In NZ those in same-sex relationships tend to be better educated and higher-earning professionals. The sort of people who make for better parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Surely any MP who allows Maori to marry is throwing childen under the bus in the name of political correctness.

    That would (as I’m sure you’re aware) be racism – assigning to a racial group a definate predication of behaviour.

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

    Not evil or satanic – as in my Ferrari analogy that marriage is between a man and woman that’s what I believe and I have the right to my belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,037) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    So your objection is that “different people have different views”. Good grief.

    No, that is your misapprehension of the point being made. The point is that people with differing views can only have a rational discussion if their discussion is based upon real things. Things which are based on faith, such as God, do not enable any such discussion because the discussion terminates at “because God said so”.

    You’ll have to point me to this rational discourse. We’re talking about gay marriage here for pete’s sake!

    You’re missing the point. I’m not talking about the argument per se but rather the things upon which the argument is based. If it is based on faith then rational discussion isn’t possible. If it is based upon real things then such things can be rationally discussed. It isn’t possible to argue against “because God said so”. It is however possible to argue about what is good for children or why tradition is good or bad.

    I believe this was my point.

    I wouldn’t want to say what you meant but what you did ask was why God’s will is not a good reason for legislation. And the answer to that is that an argument based upon “Gods will” is not based upon a “real thing”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. hinamanu (1,068 comments) says:

    Wat

    The political repercussions against the churches from terroist gays are horrifying

    Gays are wholly political and church hating. Racial groups are not identifying against churches. Gays are.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Don the Kiwi (1,814 comments) says:

    And so the slide into moral decay grows apace, with the liberal/progressives unable to see that they are destroying our society – not next month, not next year, but in couple of generation’s time.

    I have many friends who think as I do – sure, we’re in the older age bracket, mostly fairly conservative, and virtually all National voters – or should I say, used-to-be National voters. They probably number in the hundreds.

    I do believe that John Key and National will rue the day that they promoted this perversion onto society.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Saying that this legislation id for “marriage equality” actually demonstrates the vapidity of the thinking behind it

    Since

    a couple consisting of a man and a woman are in normal circumstances procreative and same sex unions are not and cannot ever have this property.

    And it is the procreative element that give marriage, as we have received it, its fundamental meaning and purpose. If it wasn’t for the children why would the Government even need to be involved in anybody’s personal relationships and how anyone of a libertarian bent could welcome this further intrusion into peoples lives, in the name of “equality” is a mystery that beggars belief

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    The point is that people with differing views can only have a rational discussion if their discussion is based upon real things. Things which are based on faith, such as God, do not enable any such discussion because the discussion terminates at “because God said so”.

    Ok. So you’re saying that because God’s existence is a belief, those who read the real thing that is the Bible and consider the real thing that is the 2,000 years of scholarshop on it are not depending on a “real thing”.

    It isn’t possible to argue against “because God said so”.

    Let’s assume for a minute that God actually exists. That’s an assumption for you I mean.

    Now in this context, “because God said so” suddenly becomes not opnion, but cast iron command. The only question is whether we are interpreting his command correctly. And while people do argue that they can make a case from the Bible for same-sex marriage, I don’t think anyone takes those people seriously.

    And yes, it’s not possible to argue against what a real God actually really said. That would be the point, surely?

    And the answer to that is that an argument based upon “Gods will” is not based upon a “real thing”.

    See what this boils down to is this: you don’t believe that God is a real thing. That is your right from now till the day you die. I *do* believe that God is a real thing.

    But what you are saying is that because *you* do not consider God to be a “real thing”, that means I must act as such in the public square. In other words, I must put asside (deny) my faith in order to participate in public discussion.

    I hope that I have shown you that telling me that I have such a condition on my participation is nothing short of a denial of religious freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Matthew Flannagan (45) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    Weihana, everything you said applies to secular moral beliefs as well, which are not empirical verfiable either.

    Not strictly true. One can empirically verify ethical statements for accuracy in terms of whether or not a proposed action achieves a desired objective. An ethical statement derived from “God said so” permits no verification.

    There simply is no avenue for rational discussion when the basis of someone’s proposal is “ equality

    The fact that you can insert a word in place of another is no demonstration of the validity of the new statement. Equality is a definable concept and whether or not something achieves equality, however it is defined, is something that can be verified. “God” cannot be verified.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Not strictly true. One can empirically verify ethical statements for accuracy in terms of whether or not a proposed action achieves a desired objective.

    You’re lecturing a PHD ethicist on ethics.

    This will end well :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Let’s assume for a minute that God actually exists. That’s an assumption for you I mean.

    Now in this context, “because God said so” suddenly becomes not opnion, but cast iron command. The only question is whether we are interpreting his command correctly.

    If your hypothetical God’s command needs human interpretation, it can’t be “iron cast”, can it now?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,039) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    Ok. So you’re saying that because God’s existence is a belief, those who read the real thing that is the Bible and consider the real thing that is the 2,000 years of scholarshop on it are not depending on a “real thing”.

    The Harry Potter books are a real thing. This doesn’t make Dumbledore a real thing.

    Let’s assume for a minute that God actually exists. That’s an assumption for you I mean.

    It is an assumption for you as well. That you believe it to be true makes it no less an assumption.

    See what this boils down to is this: you don’t believe that God is a real thing. That is your right from now till the day you die. I *do* believe that God is a real thing.

    No I don’t believe the Christian god is a real thing. But this is not essential to my argument. Regardless of whether or not you believe, the fact is that such a belief is faith based. You cannot demonstrate or verify his existence. I should clarify that when I say “not a real thing” I am not attempting to suggest I have knowledge about God’s existence, I’m merely stating that I do not know that such a God exists.

    But what you are saying is that because *you* do not consider God to be a “real thing”, that means I must act as such in the public square. In other words, I must put asside (deny) my faith in order to participate in public discussion.

    You can say whatever you like. I have never suggested otherwise. The original question was:

    “The question for me is whether what some people interpret to be God’s will should be a reason to impose that view through legislation. “

    I am telling you why I do not think “Gods will” is a good basis for legislation and my argument does not depend on God’s existence, it simply depends upon the fact that people do not know that he exists whether or not they believe.

    I hope that I have shown you that telling me that I have such a condition on my participation is nothing short of a denial of religious freedom.

    No such condition exists. You are free to invoke Jesus as much as a Greenie is free to invoke Gaia. I’m simply explaining why I do not think such arguments are rational and why political discussion should focus on things which people can rationally discuss.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    short of a denial of religious freedom.

    You propose that atheists should except your argument because “god word” said so. There would be no differences between the many different interpretations of “god word” if there was only one right belief . It is not “Gods word” it is your own personal belief that you interpret as “gods word”. Hence your argument is nothing more than I believe X so it must be so.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Hence your argument is nothing more than I believe X so it must be so.

    You mean like:I believe that creating same-sex marriage will reduce inequality so it must be so.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,040) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    You’re lecturing a PHD ethicist on ethics.

    This will end well :D

    Great. If I am bested by superior argument I have the opportunity to learn something new or to improve my own argument. Why should this be a bad thing? Am I better off if my ignorance is never tested?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. pearlgal (25 comments) says:

    Gentlemen, the real debate is not about religion but about marriage. Like I said in my Ferrari analogy, changing/replacing the Ferrari engine to a Mitsubishi engine does not make the car ‘Ferrari’. If marriage was for the same genda then it shouldn’t be called a ‘marriage’. Marriage is one of the oldes establishiment since XXXXXX ancient old. The gays should not imposed their ‘sexual orientation’ on what was established for a man and woman. This means the rest of the people who do not believe same genda ‘marriage’ have a right too, because we feel our rights have been encoached. We all beleive in equal rights, right? So, why attack marriage as we have not attach civil union?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    It’s worth remembering that a consenting adult male cannot marry his:

    (1) grandmother
    (2) grandfather’s wife
    (3) wife’s grandmother
    (4) father’s sister
    (5) mother’s sister
    (6) mother
    (7) stepmother
    (8) wife’s mother
    (9) daughter
    (10) wife’s daughter
    (11) son’s wife
    (12) sister
    (13) son’s daughter
    (14) daughter’s daughter
    (15) son’s son’s wife
    (16) daughter’s son’s wife
    (17) wife’s son’s daughter
    (18) wife’s daughter’s daughter
    (19) brother’s daughter
    (20) sister’s daughter

    Oh oh oh, that’s just (sob sob) so (gnash gnash) UNEQUAL AND UNFAIR…!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kea (13,571 comments) says:

    Gods word includes, killing naughty kids, killing people who work on Sunday, stoning non virginal brides to death on their fathers doorstep, mass murder, genocide and so much more.

    Thankfully most Christians develop their morality without reference to Gods word.

    The only people who appear to take Gods word seriously are the Muslim fundamentalists. At least they are honest and have integrity. Sharia law simply follows what is clearly written in the Bible. Basically it means the only source of law is Gods, whether it be buying a car, marriage or anything else.

    Fred Phelps is the only sincere christian I know of. He does not distort the clear words of the Bible. That is why christians want to distance themselves from him.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    ” I’m simply explaining why I do not think such arguments are rational and why political discussion should focus on things which people can rationally discuss.”

    Yeah, like the increase in HIV and drug resistant STDs the more widely homosexuality is accepted as normal alternative to real marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    You propose that atheists should except your argument because “god word” said so.

    Uh, no I don’t.

    They don’t believe in God, so they don’t agree with my argument. I don’t believe in the non-existence of God so I don’t agree with arguements based on that. We disagree – but the point is we are both allowed to bring our views to the table and have them heard.

    In fact, were I to come to the table in a secular society with such arguements, I would not expect to have them accepted. I have to talk to people and convince them on the basis of what they believe, not what I believe. To modify slight what Weihana said above:

    Moreover, even if your beliefs have a religious basis you can still advance them on the basis of things which non-religious people accept to be real.

    FYI, my main arguement against same-sex marriage is that it’s like dry water – a contradiction. I’m not in the habit of saying “because God says so” as an arguement to non-religious people. I’m defending the right of people to do it, but I don’t endorse it as a strategy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Kea: up to your usual standards I see.

    How many comments will it take you to acuse me of being a mass murderer today I wonder?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    No purely and simply its not my or your business who anyone screws or marrys.
    The right to marriage belongs to all not just the people who believe in invisible friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (13,571 comments) says:

    This is what the christian bible says on the issue:

    Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death

    Those of you who argue against against gay marriage etc from a biblical perspective, either support killing homos or your full of shit and are not real christians.

    Take your pick…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,153) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    ” I’m simply explaining why I do not think such arguments are rational and why political discussion should focus on things which people can rationally discuss.”

    Yeah, like the increase in HIV and drug resistant STDs the more widely homosexuality is accepted as normal alternative to real marriage.

    According to the CIA Factbook, the top three nations in the world by adult prevalance rate for HIV/AIDS is Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho. Are these countries known for their record on gay rights?

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kea (13,571 comments) says:

    Oh and do not bother with trying to say that is “old testament” and does not count. Jesus changed all that. That is a lie.

    I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

    “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

    “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.
    Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

    Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)

    4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)
    5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
    6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

    http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Matthew Flannagan (74 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    “Not strictly true. One can empirically verify ethical statements for accuracy in terms of whether or not a proposed action achieves a desired objective. An ethical statement derived from “God said so” permits no verification.”

    Err No Actually that’s confused., yes you can empirically verify that a particular course of action meets a “desired objective” but that does not empirically verify the claim that you are morally “required or permissible” to do that action. To get *that* conclusion need an additional premise: That the desired conclusion is one you are morally required to bring about, and that latter premise is not empirically verifiable.

    This is the standard, is ought problem in meta-ethics, you cant get substantive moral conclusions from empirical claims alone without further moral principles.

    “The fact that you can insert a word in place of another is no demonstration of the validity of the new statement”

    Actually, the standard test for the logical validity of an argument is that you should be able to substitute the premises for other premises you consider true and get a true conclusion. So this claim is simply false.

    “. Equality is a definable concept and whether or not something achieves equality, however it is defined, is something that can be verified. “God” cannot be verified.”

    The problem is as I said there are numerous different “concepts” and definitions of equality proposed. And while you can empirically verify whether an action meets one of these concepts you cant empirically verify which concept is the correct one. The same is true of Gods law, one empirically verify wether a given action is in accord with a given conceptual understanding of what Gods law is, but one cant empirically verify which conception is correct.

    That is why those you propose a verficationist understanding of evidence tend to reject that there are true moral statements. Your however trying to use verficationism to dismiss theological statements while relying on equally unverifiable secular philosophical concepts. This is self contradictory and this has all been covered in the literature on religion and public life.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (13,571 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,043) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    Kea: up to your usual standards I see.

    How many comments will it take you to acuse me of being a mass murderer today I wonder?

    ————————————————————

    If you are a christian, then I need only refer to the bible

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Gentlemen, the real debate is not about religion but about marriage…….

    So, why attack marriage as we have not attach civil union?

    Because the real meaning behind gay “marriage” is to attack the twin pillars of Western society, the Church and the Family.

    Notice the post contains the implication that “fundamentalist Christians” introduced toxicity into this debate and yet continually Christians who oppose this thing are cast as “bigots” and their arguments mocked as being “stupid”.

    From where I sit gay “marriage” is a blasphemy in the same way the “virgin in a condom” is blasphemy but this is not an argument I have used in opposing it. Rather the importance of the two parent- male, female family structure in regards to the welfare of children.

    This I believe and this belief I can back up but rather than counter the arguments I have put forward I will always receive responses to them of the “homophobic, Christian bigot” variety.

    This debate has been deliberately steered into the arena of secular “rights” versus religion by the architects of change

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. hinamanu (1,068 comments) says:

    @ Kea…

    This is Christ explaining to the Pharisees and teachers of the law they have no chance reaching heaven by fulfilling the law. The law shows us our nakedness before the holy God and only accepting Christ as our saviour who is Himself perfect to
    God’s standard can we know eternal life. In Christ we have eternal life and escape judgement from sin for He was sinless and took our sin upon Himself. When we accept Him we are freed to live for God as members of His family.

    This is the good news of the Gospel. Christ has taken our punishment for us

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Matthew Flannagan (74 comments) says:

    Kea

    Try reading the actual bible instead of the annoted evil bible
    4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)

    Actually, you’ll see Jesus is criticising adult children who fail to provide for there aged parents, which would result in them starving to death.
    5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

    It’s the same episode repeated again in Matthew, and the same reply as above is given, all you have to do is understand (a) how the word curse was used (b) that the word child refers to adult children in the language and (c) actually read the very next verse where Jesus explicitly interprets it to refer to adult children who refuse to financially provide for their aged parents.

    Sorry, dishonestly quoting passages out of context which are clipped from an internet board is never the method of sensible moral theology.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Kea (13,571 comments) says:

    Andrei, your not a bigot your a christian. I have already posted what YOUR bible says about homos.

    Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death

    Either you support that or you are only a christian by name, in which case you will not enter heaven. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Matthew Flannagan (74 comments) says:

    “this is what the christian bible says on the issue:
    Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death
    Those of you who argue against against gay marriage etc from a biblical perspective, either support killing homos or your full of shit and are not real christians.
    Take your pick…”

    Err actually I believe that earlier goes on to say this command was given to the elders of Isreal by Moses, and is not a command given to all Christian believers throughout time.
    Forget to mention that Kea, funny that, dishonesty tends to do that to people.

    Ever read any serious real moral theology or is just attacking silly caricatures that raise issue that have been discussed and dealt with by theologians and philosophers for centuries just your cowardly way of avoiding having to defend your own secular BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    I have already posted what YOUR bible says about homos.

    With zero context.

    That’s a bit like quoting from Atlas Shrugged and concluding that Ayn Rand was a communist.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Kea (13,571 comments) says:

    Sorry, dishonestly quoting passages out of context

    You must take people for idiots. Anyone can check those quotes and see your full of shit.

    Do not question my honesty you ignorant moron. The words of he bible are clear. It is a primitive brutal desert cult from another era.

    Context my arse.

    Context explained

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    The most irriating thing about the pro-redefiniton of marriage crowd is their automatic assumption of cultural superiority.

    A delusion they have (especially those just emerging from the Progressive education system) because they lack the mental dimension to perceive things otherwise.

    They are not culturally superior at all, and in many cases their viewpoint is underpinned by widespread ignorance, naivety, rabid mis-education and mainstream media promoted propaganda.

    Making them in reality culturally inferior.

    They will never ever admit it though.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    @Weihana

    “According to the CIA Factbook, the top three nations in the world by adult prevalance rate for HIV/AIDS is Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho. Are these countries known for their record on gay rights?”

    That has nothing to do with NZ where the rate of HIV and other STDs is at the very least 20 higher than amongst heterosexuals. This is to some extent do to their almost religious faith in condoms.

    This legislation will help with your recruitment of vulnerable adolescents.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Do not question my honesty you ignorant moron.

    Kea, in our first encounter, you acused me of supporting mass murder and a leftist (ast least, I think). I still have not the faintest inkling of why you chose to take my comments the way you did, nor why anyone would.

    Now you’re calling a man who spends his life on this stuff an ignorant moron.

    You do get that you’re a complete joke, don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kea (13,571 comments) says:

    scrubone in what “context” is it ok to ?:

    “killing naughty kids, killing people who work on Sunday, stoning non virginal brides to death on their fathers doorstep, mass murder, genocide and so much more.”

    Tell me the “context” for stoning a girl to death on her fathers doorstep, just for starters ? Give details about why it was ok in that “context”?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Kea (13,571 comments) says:

    I wish there were some real Christians here to debate. These pretenders are boring and lack biblical knowledge :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Changeiscoming (202 comments) says:

    Kea – you don’t know what you are even taking about! You are not saved (become a Christian) by believing in every verse of the bible. Thats works!! Now if you seriously want to know how you are saved let me know.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Kea, you’re quoting levitical law and demanding Christians follow it and complaing when they don’t.

    If the fact that Christians don’t worship in temples didn’t give it away, you could go and read Acts 15 and see if you can work it out for yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Redbaiter:

    The most irriating thing about the [thing] crowd is their automatic assumption of cultural superiority.

    A delusion they have because they lack the mental dimension to perceive things otherwise.

    They are not culturally superior at all, and in many cases their viewpoint is underpinned by widespread ignorance, naivety, rabid mis-education, [and other baseless assumptions I personally may make about their background and motives.]

    Making them in reality culturally inferior.

    They will never ever admit it though.

    Look in the mirror; tell me what you see. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “Look in the mirror; tell me what you see.”

    I see a quoted comment altered, which is something that only amoral cowards do.

    Kind of proves my point, doesn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    I see a quoted comment altered, which is something that only amoral cowards do.

    Now that is a tall horse.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    No it is not. Anyone with any grasp of decency and more importantly, any self respect, would not do something so dishonest. RRM has never ever (in my experience) showed the slightest tendency towards either of those qualities.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    No, expecting the State to discriminate against gays on your behalf, based on YOUR opinions about “morality” is something an amoral coward would do.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    you’re quoting levitical law and demanding Christians follow it and complaing when they don’t.

    Yes.

    This is the discussion we just had on another thread.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/03/a_change_in_opinion_around_the_world.html

    A devilishly handsome commenter there posted that “What matters is whether these [OT] laws/teachings were moral instructions and directives – in which case they apply to all persons for all time – or whether they were just some made up shit. If the latter, then Yahweh is exposed as a sadist with a sense of humour. And if the former, well, anyone calling themself a Christian must respect and follow all the OT prescriptions.

    So which is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    No, expecting the State to discriminate against gays on your behalf

    Can you actually tell me RRM in what way is the state discriminating against gays that this thing will address apart from claiming that two indivduals of the same sex are actually “married”.

    From my understanding of marriage this thing is impossible and legislating to try and make it so changes the actual meaning of the word and also undermines the purpose for which I got married in the first place, that is as a man to raise my own children conceived with my wife, a woman as partners together in a joint exercise to carry on from us when we are gone

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    You are not saved (become a Christian) by believing in every verse of the bible.

    So which verses do you need to believe to make the cut? Is there a points system – like differing marks for exam questions? Does Genesis account for 50% of the exam, say?

    Which I suppose raises another issue: which version of the Bible should one go for if contemplating taking the pledge? And how should one approach the process – issue an RFP to the various Churches and assemble a tender panel to consider them? On the basis that potential applicants are starting from a zero base in terms knowledge of the subject matter and any competing theological points of difference, how might one go about getting truly independent advice and have the best chance of making the right decision?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    scrub,

    That would (as I’m sure you’re aware) be racism – assigning to a racial group a definate predication of behaviour.

    That’s exactly my point.

    Discriminating against gays as our friend hinamanu argues is exactly the same moral defect as racism.

    hinamanu,

    The political repercussions against the churches from terrorist gays are horrifying

    What, they come round and criticise your drapes?

    (isn’t that an old Robin Williams joke?)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Anyone with any grasp of decency and more importantly, any self respect

    The hits keep coming. Friendly fire (again) in this instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Andrei – but all there EVER is, even with a man and a woman involved, is a bunch of people claiming that two individuals are actually “married.”

    Nanny state issues a government piece of paper called a marriage license if the two people are a man and a woman.

    Nanny state declines to issue a government piece of paper called a marriage license if the two people are of the same sex. That is discrimination, pure and simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    From my understanding of marriage this thing is impossible

    From my and many others’ understanding of marriage it is indeed very possible.

    No one takes your understanding of marriage away from you. It merely allows other people’s understanding to stand equally next to yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    You didn’t answer my question RRM, probably because you couldn’t you chose to divert

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    No Andrei.

    Why you got married is your business.

    This law change will end the discrimination of marriage (as something recognised by the mechanism of the state) being something that is exclusive to straight people.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    But that is nonsense RRM, gays are not discriminated against, they can marry provided they abide by the same rules that apply to everyone else.

    It is sheer idiocy to change the meaning of an institution which has as its fundamental purpose the continuation of society as we know it for reasons beyond the ken of any thinking person

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Pete George (23,814 comments) says:

    So which verses do you need to believe to make the cut?

    None. You just have to watch telly. I sometimes watch Firstline but try to avoid turning TV on too soon. I was three minutes early a few mornings ago (fate?) and someone said all I needed to do was to be born again and my life would improve and I would go to heaven. True story.

    This could be a bit tricky though, my mother died two years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Matthew Flannagan (48) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Err No Actually that’s confused., yes you can empirically verify that a particular course of action meets a “desired objective” but that does not empirically verify the claim that you are morally “required or permissible” to do that action. To get *that* conclusion need an additional premise: That the desired conclusion is one you are morally required to bring about, and that latter premise is not empirically verifiable.

    This is the standard, is ought problem in meta-ethics, you cant get substantive moral conclusions from empirical claims alone without further moral principles.

    I agree because I find the concept of “substantive moral conclusions”, as you refer to it, as nothing but nonsense. That is to say that I find ethics objectively meaningless outside of associating values/goals/objectives with some form of action. No “is” implies an “ought”. But this is not a “problem” to be solved by imaginary supernatural beings, it is simply an observation of reality to be acknowledged for what it implies.

    Actually, the standard test for the logical validity of an argument is that you should be able to substitute the premises for other premises you consider true and get a true conclusion. So this claim is simply false.

    So let me clarify: the substitute premise is not also true and so produces a false conclusion.

    The problem is as I said there are numerous different “concepts” and definitions of equality proposed. And while you can empirically verify whether an action meets one of these concepts you cant empirically verify which concept is the correct one. The same is true of Gods law, one empirically verify wether a given action is in accord with a given conceptual understanding of what Gods law is, but one cant empirically verify which conception is correct.

    That is why those you propose a verficationist understanding of evidence tend to reject that there are true moral statements. Your however trying to use verficationism to dismiss theological statements while relying on equally unverifiable secular philosophical concepts. This is self contradictory and this has all been covered in the literature on religion and public life.

    A true moral statement is one that proposes an action that achieves what was intended. I agree that one cannot validate whether the intention itself is good or bad without reference to some other value/goal/objective. Without reference to a value/goal/objective the question itself is meaningless. Moral terms such as “good” or “bad” are conditional: something is good BECAUSE it achieves an objective. Outside of that context the terms are meaningless and/or arbitrary.

    I agree with you that secular values can themselves be subjective and unverifiable. The aim of political discussion should not be to prove subjective values but simply to engage in rational discussion in the hopes that people can find common ground. One does not need to objectively prove subjective values (a contradiction in terms) to be able to discard arguments which contradict observation or to discard arguments based on values which contradict other, more important, values.

    But if all we need is “God said so” then we cannot even begin to engage in rational discussion. “God said so” is not an attempt to rationalize it is an attempt to command others to obedience.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    It is sheer idiocy to change the meaning of an institution which has as its fundamental purpose the continuation of society as we know it for reasons beyond the ken of any thinking person

    What “institution” is that? And who are you to say what it’s for?

    Marriage isn’t the property of the Judeo-Christian religion, plenty of much older cultures have marriages more or less exactly the same, by whatever name they call it in their language.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    they can marry provided they abide by the same rules that apply to everyone else.

    And some people are saying that at present those rules are wrong.

    Current rule is Find someone you like who is of the opposite sex and you may marry them.

    Should be Find someone you like and you may marry them.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Marriage isn’t the property of the Judeo-Christian religion, plenty of much older cultures have marriages more or less exactly the same, by whatever name they call it in their language.

    There are not many cultures that have a longer heritage than the Jews RRM and in any culture you care to name marriage has always involved men bonded to women, never ever men bonded to each other nor women bonded to each other.

    Further more the persistence of Jews as an identifiable people is entirely due to their devotion to marriage and its property of making little Jewish babies to propagate their Jewish heritage down the ages.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. iMP (2,456 comments) says:

    With all the quoting of Leviticus in this thread (to bash Christians or Gays) mebbe its time for a wee Bible/Theology checkup from ol’ Uncle iMP (an ex-pastor). This is as good a place as any.

    Quoting Leviticus 20:13 in any context as “christian” for or against gay marriage is completely irrelevant.

    1. The Old Testament is an historic context (using the ancient Jews as a template) which sole purpose was to show humanity that we are genetically unable to do what is right. “The Law brings death” the Bible says.

    2. The New Testament FULFILLS and completes the Old T. in Christ and offers love, forgiveness and grace. (This is “Christianity”).

    3. So whether you are gay or straight is completely irrelevant we are ALL in the dog box. Those who accept Christ (gay or straight) receive grace and acceptance.

    4. Here are some illustrative verses:

    a) “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our wrongdoing.” Romans 3:20. In other words, verses like Leviticus teach us what is right or wrong, black/white.

    b) So the law was our guardian (or teacher) until Christ came that we might be justified another way
    (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced… Galatians 3:24

    So the hoary old chestnuts of peeps in here quoting old testament verses at one another to show how evil christianity, God or gays are, is just ignorant. You have to appreciate the sweep of the bIble, not look at it through a hole in a sock.

    (Sorry DPF, just extended this thread by another 100). Let the debate roll…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    A devilishly handsome commenter there posted that “What matters is whether these [OT] laws/teachings were moral instructions and directives – in which case they apply to all persons for all time – or whether they were just some made up shit. If the latter, then Yahweh is exposed as a sadist with a sense of humour. And if the former, well, anyone calling themself a Christian must respect and follow all the OT prescriptions.”

    So which is it?

    So it’s either (a) or (b) because you say so.

    Well, the actual answer is (c). As in see Acts 15. It was decided by the Apostles in council that the Jewish ceremonial law did not need to be followed by the new Gentiles (non Jews) Christian believers – but sexual immorality was specifically highlighted as something to avoid. Now, that doesn’t mean that the Jewish law applies necessarily, but that law is the basis for what the Apostles would have considered sexual immorality.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. the conservative (67 comments) says:

    National is now a wasted vote; you might as well vote Greens or Labour as they are all one and the same. There is only one party left for adults and that’s the Conservative Party; stop wasting your time; give them both of your votes

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Current rule is Find someone you like who is of the opposite sex and you may marry them.

    Should be Find someone you like and you may marry them.

    That describes neither the old law nor the new law. There are far more restrictions in both, and pretending that removing one means we are all “equal” suddenly is absurd.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    “Wait a minute, Chester, now I’m a peaceful man” ♫

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,050) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    That describes neither the old law nor the new law. There are far more restrictions in both, and pretending that removing one means we are all “equal” suddenly is absurd.

    Equality before the law does not imply that two people are, in fact, equal in all aspects. This argument is a red herring. The issue is that homosexual relationships deserve the same protections as afforded to married couples (civil unions) and that their relationships should, in name, be accorded equal status (marriage amendment bill).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    The issue is that homosexual relationships deserve the same protections as afforded to married couples (civil unions) and that their relationships should, in name, be accorded equal status (marriage amendment bill).

    Why should they?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    “There is only one party left for adults and that’s the Conservative Party”

    That depends on Colin Craig. Unless he can get the polling up with reputable polling companies that could be a wasted vote.

    At this stage my vote will either go for the Conservative Party or NZF, both oppose this PC legislation.

    I am still waiting for other spokesmen or women for the Conservative Party. It appear to me that Colin decides on all policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    March 13th, 2013 by Madeleine

    http://www.mandm.org.nz/2013/03/yet-another-lawyer-agrees-marriage-amendment-act-bill-is-an-affront-to-freedom-of-religion-and-belief.html#more-10977

    It is clear that any marriage celebrant exercising their public function who is not covered by the amendment risks being in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993 if they refuse to perform their public function as marriage celebrants because it is a same sex couple seeking to be married.Church ministers, marriage celebrants, court registrars, church elders, leaders, photographers and caterers and any other person or entity supplying services to the public risks being in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 if they refuse to supply services to a couple seeking to be married because the couple are same sex. For some this could also mean risking their employment.

    It seems to me some religious people have a hard time grasping the fact that religion is not a blank cheque to do whatever you like. There are limitations to religious freedom and the fact that you justify discrimination on the basis of religion does not automatically grant you the right to do so.

    Everything that is said above can also be said about those who are racist and wish to discriminate in the offering of public services and to prevent them from doing so would likewise force them to choose between their ethical beliefs and their freedom to offer public services. One can argue that their freedom is likewise limited by having to conform to anti-discrimination laws. Matt and Madeleine (and others I’m sure) seem to believe that their particular religious beliefs hold special significance whereas the ethical beliefs of others (KKK etc.) can be restricted in terms of people discriminating in the offering of public services.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. pearlgal (25 comments) says:

    From Andrei
    It is sheer idiocy to change the meaning of an institution which has as its fundamental purpose the continuation of society as we know it for reasons beyond the ken of any thinking person.
    I totally agreed with Andrei on this.

    Excuse me people, marriage is not just for the Jews and Christians. There are other cultures in the world who believe and only accept marriage between a man and a woman!

    Jesus loves sinners including the gays, prostitutes and what not and he died on the cross to save them. But that does not mean he approves of their behaviour. If you people based your arguement on just one passage of the bible without reading the lot then your view is narrow and biased. Marriage was originally set up for pro-creation. Can the same genda fulfill this criteria?
    Don’t have shell your bullets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Fletch (4,032) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    The issue is that homosexual relationships deserve the same protections as afforded to married couples (civil unions) and that their relationships should, in name, be accorded equal status (marriage amendment bill).

    Why should they?

    Why should Blacks have equal status? Why should Catholics have equal status? Why should people with red hair have equal status? Do you really need an explanation as to why people in general should be entitled to the equal protection of the laws?

    In my view it is the exception which needs to be justified, not the presumption of equal protection. If they should be treated differently then why? One should not need to assess each of the seemingly infinite variations among human beings and explain why each variation should not be a basis for discrimination and special treatment.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    pearlgal (8) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    Marriage was originally set up for pro-creation.

    So why is it available to sterile heterosexual couples?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    If they should be treated differently then why?

    Not a good enough answer.
    What about those who want to marry multiple wives? Aren’t they being treated differently? Discriminated against? Or someone wanting to marry a cousin etc.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    So why is it available to sterile heterosexual couples?

    Weihana, because that’s the way Nature intended. Performance issues don’t come into it.
    In the same way you can’t say that because a flower doesn’t have any pollen at the moment that bees shouldn’t be flying around it. If the flower has nectar, they’re going to.

    It is the way Nature intended flowers to be pollinated; it’s immaterial whether the flower has any pollen at the moment so the process can occur. It just *is*.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. pearlgal (25 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    People have got a choice to have children or not. This is a private matter.

    I respect and accept gay as people. I don’t see them being bashed around by the rest of us who are not gay.
    What protection do they need? We are the ones (not gay) who are constantly being challenged by the gays on what we believe (not necessary religious) in based on our family values and roots.

    I would like my children to grow up the way I was brought up. Defending what I believe in, is no way ‘gay bashing’ at all. If you are a Muslim and gay then your are dead. This I call ‘gay bashing’.

    Please differentiate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Not a good enough answer.
    What about those who want to marry multiple wives? Aren’t they being treated differently? Discriminated against? Or someone wanting to marry a cousin etc.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Indeed, why not?
    Actually some states in the US actually allow you to marry your cousin.

    Gay marriage is the issue at hand. Each of those other scenarios can be evaluated on their own merit. If you think all or any of those marriages need to be allowed, you can freely argue for it.

    But to say you you can’t allow gay marriage unless you allow all those marriages as well is nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    Regardless of what you think of gay marriage:

    1. Conscience votes under MMP are undemocratic. List MPs are answerable to no-one when they have the choice to vote in conscience votes.

    2. The MSM have been partisan in the lead-up to this debate. The title of the legislation at issue is: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Yet the two newspaper chains repeatedly headline their coverage “Marriage equality”. That word use puts them in one camp. The electronic media have enthusiastically followed suit.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    People have got a choice to have children or not.

    Some do, some don’t. We still allow them to marry. We think no less of their marriage if they cannot have children.

    The argument around the ability to have children is a fallacious one, reducing marriage to that one single property.
    Marriage is far more than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. pearlgal (25 comments) says:

    Exactly right Eszett! Marriage is more than 2 people and more than just a piece of paper. It is about love and commitment and having a family and bringing up a family and having a male and female role model in the lives of the children and much more!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    As a matter of interest, what will happen to the use of the traditional honorifics, “Mr” and “Mrs”. Are these to be outlawed By the Human Rights bureaucrats as discriminatory under this new legislation? Could the PC brigade also force State school children to talk only of “parents” with “mum and dad” discouraged, or even banned?

    A second matter is: if the legislation is passed what will the effect be on married homosexual couples when they travel to places such as Dubai and Indonesia and even China or Russia? In these cases surelyl they will have to keep their conjugal status secret.

    Eszett posted at 5.09 that marriage is far more than the ability to have children. Agreed. There is a the legal partnership aspect, but this is also provided by civil unions. Does “marriage” provide anything more than civil unions except in the ability for couples to adopt children. If not, wouldn’t it have been far simpler just to amend the civil union legislation to permit adoption?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    If not, wouldn’t it have been far simpler just to amend the civil union legislation to permit adoption?

    Because the promoters of this want the adoption thing to happen without public debate, without most people realizing that children are to be bought into the equation, we are dealing with deceit of the first order here

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. gump (1,684 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    “What about those who want to marry multiple wives? Aren’t they being treated differently? Discriminated against? Or someone wanting to marry a cousin etc.”

    ——————–

    Your statement contains two major errors of fact (which speaks to your general ignorance of the subject at hand).

    1. Multiple marriages are already legally recognised in New Zealand (provided they were legally recognised in their country of origin). Saudi marriages don’t get dissolved when their members visit New Zealand.

    2. It is legal to marry your first cousin in New Zealand and it has always been legal under NZ common law.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    pearlgal (10) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 5:15 pm
    Exactly right Eszett! Marriage is more than 2 people and more than just a piece of paper. It is about love and commitment and having a family and bringing up a family and having a male and female role model in the lives of the children and much more!

    You do not need all those properties to have a marriage today. Love and commitment suffice. Some would say even just commitment.

    And we allow marriages that are about love and commitment and cannot or do not wish to have family and bringing up a family. We don’t think less about those marriages. No one questions at the time of marriage whether you intend or can have children.

    And today we have gay couples with love and commitment and having a family and bringing up a family, yet we don’t allow them to marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    2. It is legal to marry your first cousin in New Zealand and it has always been legal under NZ common law.

    Reminds me of a conversation long ago with a friend.

    ME: You can marry your cousin.
    HIM: Why?! Did she say something?!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Matthew Flannagan (74 comments) says:

    “It seems to me some religious people have a hard time grasping the fact that religion is not a blank cheque to do whatever you like. There are limitations to religious freedom and the fact that you justify discrimination on the basis of religion does not automatically grant you the right to do so.

    Everything that is said above can also be said about those who are racist and wish to discriminate in the offering of public services and to prevent them from doing so would likewise force them to choose between their ethical beliefs and their freedom to offer public services. One can argue that their freedom is likewise limited by having to conform to anti-discrimination laws. Matt and Madeleine (and others I’m sure) seem to believe that their particular religious beliefs hold special significance whereas the ethical beliefs of others (KKK etc.) can be restricted in terms of people discriminating in the offering of public services.”

    That assumes you cant make a principled distinction between say being a Jew and being a member of the KKK.

    It also assumes that the appropriate stance to take towards say orthodox jews is socially as on par with neo nazis.

    I agree that religion is not a blank cheque to do anything, but if we are to have a meaningful Law protecting freedom of religion I would maintain that a person should not, even if they are serving some public role, be compelled by law to be party to a religious ritual or ceremony that is contrary to their religious beliefs. Jewish celebrants for example should not be required officate in Hindu weddings. Forcing a Catholic to officiate a same sex marriage when he believes marriage is a sacrament is not any different in principle from this. The fact that some people think there is nothing wrong with same sex weddings is no more relevant than the fact some people thing there is nothing wrong with worshipping Hindu Gods.

    Moreover if freedom of religion is to be meaningful then one must accord a reasonable degree of freedom to practise a religion and override it only when there are compelling state interests.

    The fact parliament apparently dont grasp that with marriage which is in tied up with religious ritual and ceremony in way other actions are not freedom of religion is not an issue and people can just be required by law to be involved is quite staggering really

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Matthew Flannagan (74 comments) says:

    “I agree because I find the concept of “substantive moral conclusions”, as you refer to it, as nothing but nonsense. That is to say that I find ethics objectively meaningless outside of associating values/goals/objectives with some form of action. No “is” implies an “ought”. But this is not a “problem” to be solved by imaginary supernatural beings, it is simply an observation of reality to be acknowledged for what it implies.”

    This proves my point, to get your conclusion you have to make various controversial philosophical claims such as ” ethics objectively meaningless outside of associating values/goals/objectives” unfortunately you adjudicate between this and other moral theories which don’t hold that view with empirical evidence alone. Ergo your position is based on unverifiable claims.
    Moreover you missed my point that even if you ground moral principles in goals you still have to have as a premise that certain goals are morally valuble and others are not, again that’s a philosophical claim that cant be determined by empirical verification. Ergo your position is based on unverifiable claims.

    So if religious claims are inappropriate in public policy debates because they are unverifiable so are all your moral secular claims, in fact so are all moral secular claims, and certainly the claim: there is a right to marry someone of the same sex, which is itself unverifiable by empirical evidence should be excluded.

    “So let me clarify: the substitute premise is not also true and so produces a false conclusion.”

    I disagree, the premises I substituted were (a) there are different interpretations of what is equality ( in replacement for the claim that there are different interpretations of what Gods law is) and (b) the claim that people in North Korea, USSR and Cuba imposed certain understandings of equality on people ( in replacement to your example of Afghanistan imposing are particular interpretation of Gods law) the rest of the argument was identical to yours
    (a) And (b) are both clearly true, there are different interpretations of what is equality and there those regimes did impose marxist Leninist or some variant thereof interpretations of equality on to people.

    Hence, if we follow your reasoning for dismissing appeals to Gods law we can dismiss yours

    “A true moral statement is one that proposes an action that achieves what was intended. I agree that one cannot validate whether the intention itself is good or bad without reference to some other value/goal/objective. Without reference to a value/goal/objective the question itself is meaningless. Moral terms such as “good” or “bad” are conditional: something is good BECAUSE it achieves an objective. Outside of that context the terms are meaningless and/or arbitrary.”

    That’s clearly a flawed position, suppose someone intends to oppress homosexuals, opposing Gay marriage might achieve that, if so it would be your definition good.
    But even if that’s the case, all you have done is assert that, I can similarly assert something is right because God commands it, if I have to provide empirical proof so do. You can just appeal to something by telling me you believe it so can I. I believe Gay marriage is against Gods law.

    “I agree with you that secular values can themselves be subjective and unverifiable. The aim of political discussion should not be to prove subjective values but simply to engage in rational discussion in the hopes that people can find common ground. One does not need to objectively prove subjective values (a contradiction in terms) to be able to discard arguments which contradict observation or to discard arguments based on values which contradict other, more important, values. But if all we need is “God said so” then we cannot even begin to engage in rational discussion. “God said so” is not an attempt to rationalize it is an attempt to command others to obedience.”

    That’s simply an arbitrary claim, if as you say secular values are subjective, and unprovable and we don’t have to prove them why cant subjective unprovable religious claims be used in public debate. As to your suggestion that the former but not the latter can produce common ground that’s dubious. There is no consensus in secular moral philosophy today on moral theory or moral conclusions any more than there is in religion. Moreover I suspect that if say Jews, Muslims and Christians sat down and discussed what God commanded there would be a reasonable amount of common ground reached, certainly no less common ground than that reached by say secular Marxists and libertairans.

    So all we have is an arbitrary stipulation that your views should be considered by parliament and religious views not, for no reason at all. Of course when those are the rules its not suprising secular positions win the debate, rigged debates are easy to win and it avoids the difficulty of defending secular views against dissenters by ignoring they don’t exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    ps, I notice that there were 8 in favour of gay marriage giving speeches, and only 4 making speeches who opposed it.
    Why twice as many giving speeches in favour of it?
    That hardly seems fair.

    It should have been 6 for, 6 against.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    Fletch – the presiding officers, Ross Robertson and Eric Roy both voted against, so the suggestion of their bias doesn’t hold water.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Pete George (23,814 comments) says:

    Fletch – there were about twice as many who voted for than against, so twice as many for speeches seems about right. There were only four female speakers and certainly doesdn’t look like half Maori speakers, can’t get everything even. Indians were overrepresented with one speaker.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Kea (13,571 comments) says:

    I still do not know why the Christians do not simply stone the poofters to death, as their God and bible clearly commands them to do.

    Or did I get that out of “context” again ?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Matthew Flannagan (50) Says:
    March 14th, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    This proves my point, to get your conclusion you have to make various controversial philosophical claims such as ” ethics objectively meaningless outside of associating values/goals/objectives” unfortunately you adjudicate between this and other moral theories which don’t hold that view with empirical evidence alone. Ergo your position is based on unverifiable claims.

    The fact it is controversial does not negate its validity. That other “theories” contradict this view also does not negate its validity. Indeed I would argue that even if God exists, such an existence is merely another “is” that does not imply an “ought” regardless of what he commands and the punishments he threatens for noncompliance. If one accepts that no “is” implies an “ought” then the position I advance logically follows.

    Moreover you missed my point that even if you ground moral principles in goals you still have to have as a premise that certain goals are morally valuble and others are not, again that’s a philosophical claim that cant be determined by empirical verification. Ergo your position is based on unverifiable claims.

    The empirical connection between a goal and action to achieve that goal does not depend on claiming that the goal itself is “moral”. You are presupposing a need for goals to be moral. I claim no such need. A goal simply is… subjectively chosen by the individual who desires it. No goal is intrinsically more valid than any other.

    So if religious claims are inappropriate in public policy debates because they are unverifiable so are all your moral secular claims, in fact so are all moral secular claims, and certainly the claim: there is a right to marry someone of the same sex, which is itself unverifiable by empirical evidence should be excluded.

    It’s not so much that they are inappropriate as much as they are irrational. One cannot verify whether God’s will has been satisfied. One can, however, verify whether real world goals have been achieved. I acknowledge, however, that it cannot be verified whether or not marriage equality is a “right”. I agree this is a subjective goal and unverifiable on any objective basis. However, no ethical position should be considered in isolation. If one holds contradictory goals then that could provide a basis for rational discussion. Marriage equality for instance is a part of a broader ideology.

    That’s clearly a flawed position, suppose someone intends to oppress homosexuals, opposing Gay marriage might achieve that, if so it would be your definition good.

    Good…. at achieving the desired oppression. I fail to see the flaw.

    But even if that’s the case, all you have done is assert that…

    No, the empirical validity of the relationship between the action and the goal exists irrespective of my assertion or my agreement.

    So all we have is an arbitrary stipulation that your views should be considered by parliament and religious views not, for no reason at all.

    My proposition as I recall was that God’s will was not a rational basis for legislation. I agree my argument can be applied to certain secular propositions as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. bc (1,395 comments) says:

    The second reading has passed – it’s the end of the world!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Lucia Maria (2,654 comments) says:

    Kea,

    I still do not know why the Christians do not simply stone the poofters to death, as their God and bible clearly commands them to do.

    Jesus, who is God, told us, “He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”

    That’s one major reason right there.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    My proposition as I recall was that God’s will was not a rational basis for legislation.

    You proposition fails because common law is based on aspects of Judaic law, although the state lies about this issue, saying that common law is simply case law.

    Common law is used as a basis for interpreting legislation, and for establishing new law.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    I still do not know why the Christians do not simply stone the poofters to death, as their God and bible clearly commands them to do.

    One reason is that they may think that the law was nailed to the cross.
    Another is that the old covenant was broken and superseded by the new (Jeremiah 31)

    The relationship between Christianity and Hebrew law isn’t straightforward. The schism between Paul and James the Just was over the faith vs works argument, with works being related to law.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Jacob Cohen (46 comments) says:

    Andrei – Because the promoters of this want the adoption thing to happen without public debate, without most people realizing that children are to be bought into the equation, we are dealing with deceit of the first order here

    So are all the Members of Parliament, who spoke last night, totally ignorant of this aspect, and make no comment on it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Jacob Cohen (46 comments) says:

    A child born to a married mother and father has both as role models each providing certain influences, so maybe a 50 : 50 set-up

    A child in a single parent family where the other has buggered off [one quarter of New Zealand familes] is a 50 : 0 set-up

    So what is a same sex marriage for a child, a 100 : 0 or, other sex 0 : 100 set up?
    More or less unbalanced?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    The new Pope would support same sex marriage, how do you fundies reconcile that news huh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    “So are all the Members of Parliament, who spoke last night, totally ignorant of this aspect, and make no comment on it?”

    The MPs like lawyers and used car salesmen had one priority in common – their own self interest.

    The National MPs are being whipped on this to a degree. None would support Winston’s call for a referendum.

    Do you think MPs on average have a higher conscience than you have?

    [DPF: Stick to the facts. Most National MPs voted against the second reading and a fair number voted for a referendum]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    The new Pope would support same sex marriage

    On the Argentinian government’s support for a gay marriage bill:
    “Let’s not be naive: this isn’t a simple political fight, it’s an attempt to destroy God’s plan.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/13/pope-francis-quotations-by-him-about-him

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Sofia (858 comments) says:

    “Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
    – Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires,s the new Pope of the Roman Catholic Church
    http://www.queerty.com/pope-francis-i-same-sex-marriage-is-a-machination-of-the-father-of-lies-20130313/

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Oh, quelle surprise the catholic kiddy fiddling brigade hate the poofters. My bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Sofia (858 comments) says:

    Expat – The new Pope would support same sex marriage

    You can of course supply a link to substantiate your comment?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Oh, quelle surprise the catholic kiddy fiddling brigade hate the poofters. My bad.

    No, your slander. Why don’t you tell us some more lies about the new pope?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    He’s progressive and will clean up the churches dirty little secrets. Really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    “The MPs like lawyers and used car salesmen had one priority in common – their own self interest. ”

    I am sticking to the facts. How many here would say MPs have on average more of a conscience that than the average voter?

    I have approached my National MPs and my own in particular. I of course can not prove it but I strongly suspect any National MP who spoke in favour of a motion Winston put forward would not be popular with Mr Key. It seems Tau want to say support it cause he does not look to have a long term future with National but he was not allowed.

    My vote is going either to Colin or Winston who believe in real democracy not allowing a militant minority to dictate to the majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Well at least you’re not trying to hide the fact that you are a liar, expat.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    St Francis the reformer. Good spin when the old collar had to exit stage left before the witnesses couldn’t be bought off any more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    How about some new material, expat? Your schtick is getting boring.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    George the apologist -http://m.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/8427452/Pope-humble-but-remains-quiet-on-dirty-war

    How’s that material chap?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    On your marks. Get set. SMEAR!
    Liberals away!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    What can I say, low hanging fruit Fletch (BTW, I’m not a liberal, just against bronze age superstition taking advantage of the weak).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    I am sticking to the facts. How many here would say MPs have on average more of a conscience that than the average voter?

    What does that even mean “on average more of a conscience that than the average voter”???
    You keep repeating this nonsense over and over again.

    Why is it that you cannot understand the meaning of a “conscience vote” or a free vote:

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

    Why is it that a party whipped vote is ok with you but a free vote somehow not? So if the parties would have whipped their MPs into voting for this bill then you would have no problem with it.

    My vote is going either to Colin or Winston who believe in real democracy not allowing a militant minority to dictate to the majority.

    I have to laugh at the “militant” minority. What a ludicrous notion. Louisa Wall looks very militant, indeed.

    By all means, take your vote to Colin or even better to Winston, if this is the issue that decides your vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    expat,
    Bergoglio could well be accused of cowardice in not standing up to junta, and perhaps even complicity. However Christian religious leaders are not necessarily conservative – Windsor’s position is in opposition to Bergoglio’s regarding same-sex civil unions.

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

    Actually I think there’s at least fifty who are considering getting married, not two. But you’re right – very few will use the legislation.

    OK, you staunch defenders of traditional marriage (and not-quite-so-traditional no-fault divorce), please make up your minds.

    Either this bill is a trivial distraction that nobody will take advantage of. Or it’s the end of civilization.

    Can’t have it both ways, chaps.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Koo (25 comments) says:

    “There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord”. Proverbs 21:30.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    Cultural and social nihilism at it’s finest.

    Chardonnay sales went through the roof last night as the liberal elite congratulated themselves on another fine act of buggery to the masses.

    Here here chaps!

    Next week it’s off to fawn over a progressive art exhibition focusing on painting with feces!

    Oh we have come such a long way!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird: “Yeah, like the increase in HIV and drug resistant STDs the more widely homosexuality is accepted as normal alternative to real marriage.”

    So stop fucking men in the ass then Chuck and you will be fine…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    John Banks fold up your tent and ride off into the sunset.

    You’re a clapped out two faced loser.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Either this bill is a trivial distraction that nobody will take advantage of. Or it’s the end of civilization.

    In terms of marriage, it is a trivial distraction. People don’t need a marriage licence in order to marry lawfully, just as people don’t need a driver licence in order to exercise their common law right to use a public road in the ordinary way. If people want to screw their lives up by giving the state an interest in their family, then that is their choice.

    In term of the end of civilization, the writing is on the wall. Same-sex civil unions are just a more visible example of how the civil institutions are dead on the inside. Rome hasn’t kicked the bucket quite yet, but there’s not much time left on the clock.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Pete George (23,814 comments) says:

    “In term of the end of civilization, the writing is on the wall.”

    There’s been a lot of writing on that wall, for a long time.
    When civilization does inevitably end, if there is anyone left they will be able to point at any cause they like, at all causes on the wall if they like, and tell themselves “I told you so”.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    So stop fucking men in the ass then Chuck and you will be fine…

    I suggest you stop licking men’s assholes and you would not talk so much shit.

    Many of your homosexual mates are actually bisexual so there behaviour affects the rest of us in a couple of ways. Firstly, bisexuals spread the disease to some totally innocent people like women married who have no idea their husband is a bisexual. Secondly, the high number of infections in the homosexual community creates drug resistant strains of STDs

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    The thought occurs that it’s God’s command to look after the poor that lead to our implementation of the welfare state to care for the poor.

    But yea, talk about the Taliban. Taliban means student – they studied the Koran and realised that it demands they implement Islam by force. The Bible says no such thing – quite the opposite in fact, the message is ultimatly one of love.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,054) Says:
    March 15th, 2013 at 9:51 am

    The Bible says no such thing – quite the opposite in fact, the message is ultimatly one of love.

    ————————————-

    I think you may have been sold a fake bible – the message of love you talk about is very obscure, however the message of violence, retribution, and inquality, comes through very clearly, especially in the first testament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,055) Says:
    March 15th, 2013 at 9:51 am
    The thought occurs that it’s God’s command to look after the poor that lead to our implementation of the welfare state to care for the poor.

    What a load of rubbish. It was fear that lead to the implementation of the welfare state. People were afraid of seeing the same events of the previous years in which some quite literally starved, and were forced to beg on the streets, that saw legislation introduced to prevent such things happening again.

    There had been several such periods of financial depression in NZ where people had experienced extreme hardship prior to the enactment of welfare, and God and his command had made bugger all difference in those times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. ChardonnayGuy (1,232 comments) says:

    I think that one of the problems with those who argue that ‘religious freedom’ should not be impaired in this context fail to adequately comprehend New Zealand law insofar as freedom of (and from) religion is concerned. In New Zealand, we have legislative guarantees of freedom of religious association, assembly, worship, conscience, belief, speech and broad areas of religious practise. However, the latter can be legitimately restricted where it infringes on the rights and freedoms of others.

    Conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants believe abortion and marriage equality to be ‘immoral’, but liberal Catholics and Protestants dissent from that perspective, argue that monogamy per se is a social good and that it would strengthen the institution of civil marriage to include LGBT couples. The latter charge that their right to freedom of conscience and belief would be infringed in the event of any refusal to pass marriage equality legislation.

    Here’s the problem that I have with radical ‘religious liberty’ arguments that suggest untrammelled and absolute rights to religious practise even if they infringe the rights of others. Would we then therefore be compelled to permit animal sacrifice, religious use of narcotics and polygamy if certain religious groups stated that they believed these to be core elements of religious practise, regardless of the effects on animal cruelty laws, drug policy and laws against domestic violence and child sexual abuse (rife in some schismatic fundamentalist “Mormon” US and Canadian communities)? Because that is the case within the United States at present. There are good public policy reasons that the right to religious practise is broad but not absolute.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    Disappointing post from you Chardonnay guy. As usual you are arguing the exact opposite of the truth. The fact of the matter is is that churches will now be liable for prosecution for sticking to their biblical beliefs. Churches will have to make their premises available for gay marriage ceremonies, if those premises are available for public hire. Marriage celebrants will have to marry gays apart from marriage celebrants that are pastors and that are members of a denomination that has a clear position opposing gay marriage. So about two thirds of marriage celebrants are not covered by this and will have to marry gays or face prosecution.

    So for the sake of a few gay people who say they want to get married we are up ending the whole institution of marriage and we are about to prosecute churches for holding beliefs that they have held for millennia.

    But yes the gay brigade will soon start persecuting churches. In Canada they have already started doing so. That’s the trouble with sin, it just keeps growing. However God is in charge and if we have to go to jail, we have to go to jail. I appreciate freedom of conscience is a foreign concept for gay radicals but if we Christians have to suffer for the freedom to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ then that is the price we will have to pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Shazzadude (531 comments) says:

    I note you mentioned that christian bigots caused some MPs to switch their positions or comment negatively on it, but you conveniently failed to mention that Tim MacIndoe had the same experience from bigoted people in favour of gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    Sabbath tomorrow Scott. No time for posting here when you need to get all your work finished before then.

    Oh, I forgot. The Bible doesn’t apply to you and your fellow fake Christians does it.

    Strangely, it turns out the Bible only applies to non-Christians.

    Who knew.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. SPC (5,665 comments) says:

    Scott, it is you who is arguing the exact oppositie of the truth.

    Your claim that individual celebrants will have solemnise marriages of same sex couples is completely wrong.

    The existing legislation (under which they are not required to perform marriages/civil unions now) is retained

    s.29(1) will still state that no celebrant is obliged to marry any couple (the Human Rights Commission who would consider any discrimination-based complaint have already indicated that this means exactly what it says).

    The added protection in s 29 (2) to celebrants from groups is an added protection (not actually necessary but just put in because some groups were paranoid) for their religious POV.

    The legislation says

    “Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1, and no celebrant who is a person nominated to solemnize marriages by an approved organisation, is obliged to solemnize a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.”

    The generality of subsection (1) means that even if the organisation supports same sex marriage it cannot force individual ministers/celebrants to perform them.

    You maybe right as to church halls open for public use, but this does not include the church building itself.

    All those owning premises for general public purposes are bound by anti-discrimiantion laws – the purpose is to prevent people denying things like accomodation to same sex people or those of different ethnic groups etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    Wat my dear chap – nice to hear from you again. I actually think we are making progress. Your post was a lot milder than what we have seen in the past. Perhaps God is softening your heart? If so excellent!

    Once again the specific Sabbath rules in the Old Testament were commands from God laid down specifically for the people of Israel. For they were tasked by God to be his chosen people, to be a light to the nations. So they had different rules to set them apart from the tribes around them. So they observed the Sabbath strictly. They also didn’t eat pork to distinguish them from the people around them.

    Now that Jesus has come to the whole world, the strict rules about diet for example do not apply. For God has poured out his spirit on all people. There is a new covenant, a new agreement between God and men.

    To put it very simply, you must allow God to deal specifically at certain times with certain people in certain situations. Hence the Jews had specific rules that applied to them. The specific rules no longer apply from the old covenant. However the general principles remain.

    One last example. When David killed Goliath that was an example of God supernaturally providing David courage and strength to deal with an enemy. God helped David specifically in that situation. Now that does not give us a mandate today to have a slingshot and ammunition in our pockets in case we meet some large foreboding person coming the other way down the street!?

    However the larger principle of David versus Goliath is that there are situations where a smaller weaker person can triumph over a more powerful opponent when right is on their side. So the modern day case of Erin Brockovich taking on the powerful corporations that were polluting the environment and winning in court is an example of the David and Goliath principle.

    The specifics of the law about diet and Sabbath observance no longer apply, but the principles remain. Hope this helps to clarify the situation.

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

    SPC– well one of us is wrong and I think it’s you. There is an exemption for ministers of religion who have membership of a body that has a clear stance against gay marriage. Individual celebrants who are not ministers of religion will be required to marry gay couples upon request. They cannot refuse on grounds of opposition to gay marriage. Louisa Wall has made that quite clear. Kevin Hague is making that quite clear.

    This has been widely reported in the New Zealand Herald and other publications. Gay marriage will become a universal human right, this is what the select committee has said. They have granted an exemption for pastors of approved bodies only. If you are a celebrant who objects to gay marriage on moral grounds then you have no protection under the law once this legislation is enacted. Because gay marriage is now a universal human right, or soon will be. So let’s get a clue about this. Individual marriage celebrants will have to fall into line with gay thinking or face prosecution or go out of the business of marriage celebrants. Those my friend are the facts. Unpleasant as they may be.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Cutting through your crap, this, again, is the essential point:

    “What matters is whether these [OT] laws/teachings were moral instructions and directives – in which case they apply to all persons for all time – or whether they were just some made up shit. If the latter, then Yahweh is exposed as a sadist with a sense of humour. And if the former, well, anyone calling themself a Christian must respect and follow all the OT prescriptions.”

    So which is it?

    Were the OT laws moral laws, in which case the apply to all people at all times.

    Or were they not, in which case Yahweh is shown to be a vicious and cruel monster, inventing barbaric arbitrary laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Here’s the problem that I have with radical ‘religious liberty’ arguments that suggest untrammelled and absolute rights to religious practise even if they infringe the rights of others.

    Liberty, religious or otherwise, does not infringe upon the rights of others. Liberty is not the same as freedom.

    An example of religious belief infringing upon the rights of others is the religious belief held by the state that the civil magistrate has power over all men. The civil magistrate only has power over persons, as their jurisdiction is personal, not universal. A consequence of this belief that state trammels fundamental liberties such as the freedom of movement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. SPC (5,665 comments) says:

    Scott, and you are a bald bare faced liar who has no credibility left.

    There is no evidence in the media to support what you claim Wall and Hague said and nor any media reports on the topic to back up what you say.

    s.29(1) states that no celebrant is obliged to marry any couple

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    What matters is whether these [OT] laws/teachings were moral instructions and directives – in which case they apply to all persons for all time

    Persons are irrelevant when talking about teachings. Students are relevant, and ordinary students are people, no persons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    If (Western) marriage is nothing more than two people wanting to love and live together and play with each other genitals, why do homosexuals want to embrace it? Anyone can do that anyway. Want the relationship documented? Civil union.

    Is it because marriage confers some old-fashioned respectability? Marriage has never permitted homosexual acts, and now it will. Such a drastic redefinition is unlikely to have no effect on how marriage is viewed.

    Is marriage, the formalisation of a special relationship that has its roots in the beginning of life itself, an institution that has since time immemorial concerned copulation and raising any children, to become nothing more than a comforting word for homosexuals?

    The solution to the “problem” of equality was always simple. Don’t like marriage? Don’t get married.

    Homosexuals are demanding society endorses their homosexual activities. Tolerance was not sufficient. The demand is normalisation of deviance: buggery be the equivalence of mating.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Is it because marriage confers some old-fashioned respectability?

    Marriage in the historical sense is a lawful union between a man and a woman. You don’t need a licence to do what is lawful, which implies that a civil union falls short of the mark. Same-sex civil unions only serve to highlight this point.

    The demand is normalisation of deviance

    That cannot demand what is not lawful, so they redefine the language instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Ugly Truth. Thank you. I don’t see why the state cannot create legal “civil union/partnership”, the purpose to give couples the same property rights as married couples.

    I don’t believe the state has any right to redefine “marriage” to include civil union, which is essentially what it is doing. It’s the old story, might is right. Huhne and Pryce go to jail over a speeding ticket, Blair becomes a multi-millionaire for killing people.

    It’s easier to fool people than set them straight…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Dennis,
    You’re welcome. Property rights are certainly part of the issue. Common law inheritance depends on a lawful marriage, and results in the transfer of ownership of real property, but legislation only applies to personal property. Words of art have long been used by the system to maintain control.

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

    SPC-don’t call me a liar. People would agree more with the pro gay marriage lobby if they were just a bit more polite. But then what standard can you hold an atheist to?

    A Legal Opinion obtained by Family First NZ from Barrister Ian Bassett has labeled the conscientious exemption proposed by the Select Committee Report on the same-sex marriage bill as ‘unprincipled and wrong’, ‘misguided’, ‘unjustifiably discriminatory’, and ‘based upon flawed legal advice’.

    SUMMARY of Legal Opinion
    If the Bill was enacted incorporating the s5A recommendations of the Select Committee then:

    Q1: Will marriage celebrants, marriage registrars and ministers of religion (who are also marriage celebrants) be forced to solemnise same-sex ‘marriages’ even if to do so would be contrary to the religious beliefs of the marriage celebrants, marriage registrars and ministers of religion?

    Protected
    (a) A marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation) will be able lawfully to refuse to solemnise a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.

    NOT Protected

    (b) A marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation) will not be able lawfully to refuse to solemnise a marriage if the religious body or the approved organisation endorsed same sex marriage.

    NOT Protected

    (d) (i) Independent marriage celebrants (ie who are not celebrants within (a) above) will not lawfully be able to refuse to solemnise a same sex marriage even if solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious beliefs or conscience.
    NOT Protected

    (ii) Marriage registrars will not lawfully be able to refuse to solemnise a same sex marriage even if solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious beliefs or conscience.

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

    Wat my dear chap, if you ask a question and it gets answered thoughtfully and clearly and you make no attempt to engage with the answer, then that doesn’t do you credit?

    I have clearly stated that there is a distinction in the Old Testament between those laws about murder and theft et cetera which were given in the 10 Commandments and apply to all people for all time. And those ceremonial laws and regulations, given in the law, that applied to the people of Israel specifically to them. Those ceremonial laws include strict laws about the Sabbath and about eating of pork among others. They applied to the people of Israel. So they were not laws for the whole world. So the whole world is not bound by the law about eating pork for example. They were laws for the people of Israel.

    So God is not arbitrary and cruel. In fact God even in the Old Testament promises joy for those who follow him. So for example God says through the prophet Isaiah chapter 35 in verse 10 – “and the ransomed of the Lord will return. They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.”

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

    SPC- and this in the media my old chum- Bill ‘forces same-sex marriages on church’ – lawyer
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7563277/Bill-forces-same-sex-marriages-on-church-lawyer

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

    SPC-and this from NZ Conservative- https://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/wall-confirms-celebrants-church-halls-not-exempt-gay-marriages/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    Regarding celebrants of same sex marriage, the proposed law is still unclear.
    It exempts a celebrant if gay marriage conflicts with the religious body he is part of.
    So a celebrant can not object because of her own individual convictions.
    She or he must reflect the group he belongs to.

    But in the case of the New Zealand Presbyterians, the General Synod opposes same sex marriage, but the Presbyterian Church of St Andrews on the Terrace, with a gay Minister, does not.

    Which raises the question, can a gay couple in Timaru, for example, demand the Presbyterian Church there conduct the ceremony because a Presbyterian Church in Wellington will, or be denied because it is Synod policy?

    And if both the Synod and St Andrews on the Terrace believe in the same sources of faith, how come they are so different?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Koo (25 comments) says:

    Hi people, just because one lesbian MP wants to promote her own agenda – she gets want she wants. How fair is this?
    I immigrated to New Zealand thinking that there is freedom here. This country is now worst than a 3rd world because one politician has some much power and influence to promote her personal agenda.

    We really need a referrandum so that are people have their say. To my knowledge, the other people in this country like the pro family despite of their religions are not happy with it. The tradition and family values they fight for are being robbed by one lesbian in parliment. Gay community is only minority in NZ and this Gay Marriage Bill does not represent wider New Zealand.

    It’s jsut like one alien ship arrives on planet earth and takes ‘earth’ people hostage and turn their lives upside down.

    Personally, I respect and accept gay people as they are and in return I hope they respect my values too. For all the feeds here on this site its all pro ‘gay’ and biased.

    Please be fair to the rest of us! Thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. lazza (401 comments) says:

    Presbuttons tangle Church V Synod. Oh Dear! See what happens when religion pokes its nose into private/personal human rights-law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Koo (25 comments) says:

    So Iazza you think only the Gay People are entitled to Human Rights? What about us? What kind of democratic country is this?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    Here’s what I say to a referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Koo (25 comments) says:

    Can’t believe it man! More bias propaganda.
    Have a good day sir.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    I immigrated to New Zealand thinking that there is freedom here

    Same sex marriage isn’t being made compulsory.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Slick but exceptionally silly propaganda Ryan Sproull. That sad little man can get married in Ireland provided he can find an eligible spouse from the pool of of age unmarried Irish women.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    Andrei – I enjoyed that youtube link you posted a few weeks back (the woman in the bikini.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. SPC (5,665 comments) says:

    Scott – you are a liar and I know you are, end of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    Scott,

    I have clearly stated that there is a distinction in the Old Testament between those laws about murder and theft et cetera which were given in the 10 Commandments and apply to all people for all time.

    So, as one of the Ten Commandments, keeping the Sabbath applies “to all people for all time.”

    I’m glad we got that straight.

    And the punishment for doing the slightest bit of work on the Sabbath is death by stoning.

    …And those ceremonial laws and regulations, given in the law, that applied to the people of Israel specifically to them. Those ceremonial laws include strict laws about the Sabbath and about eating of pork among others.

    And the laws about stoning disobedient children to death.

    And stoning women who are not virgins when they marry.

    Approving slavery.

    What you revealing try to dismiss as “ceremonial laws.”

    But you are still dodging the essential point: Are these violent OT laws based in morality or not?

    I’ll ask you yet again:

    What matters is whether these [OT] laws/teachings were moral instructions and directives – in which case they apply to all persons for all time – or whether they were just some made up shit. If the latter, then Yahweh is exposed as a sadist with a sense of humour. And if the former, well, anyone calling themself a Christian must respect and follow all the OT prescriptions.

    Please answer the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. SPC (5,665 comments) says:

    wat, the Catholic Church banned Christians from observing the Sabbath Day in 365CE – at the Council of Laodicea. Thus it is one commandment they did not keep. Most churches followed their example (Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans and adult baptised Protestant groups).

    But today the 40 hour work week allows many Christians to observe it by having weekends off, many Catholics play sport games and those on the pill tend to watch and then socialise with them in the evening.

    I still keep an eye out for Christians bearing false witness, whether it be of some advent or just general lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Koo (25 comments) says:

    Rodders

    Yr comment:-
    Same sex marriage isn’t being made compulsory.

    Hey, I understand that. When I said ‘freedom’ – I meant there should be a democratic process to pass a bill/law eh.
    The process here is like tyranny. One person in Parliment force this bill through using Human Rights as a guise.
    Everyone with a brain can see that!

    Our dear gay friends feel that they have been ‘discriminated’.
    What about us who we want freedom to vote and speak? We are being discrimiated too, just because we want keep our family values too? Why the double standard?
    FYI – I am not religious.

    Our gay friends think that they are a speacial and unique bunch – why borrow ‘Marriage’ from the heterosexuals?
    Have your own unique and special ‘brand’. Call it ‘Gay Matrimony’ or something else creative. Aren’t you people who clamied to be earning more money and have more talents than the rest of us? Come up with something unique eh?
    You being so superior than the rest of us want us to kowtow to you, change our values and our way of life!

    This worst than where I came from! Help!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    One person in Parliment force this bill through using Human Rights as a guise

    76 MP’s other than Louisa Wall voted for it. It is a Member’s Bill, so no “force” is involved.

    What about us who we want freedom to vote and speak?

    Who is stopping you?

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

    I meant there should be a democratic process to pass a bill/law eh.
    The process here is like tyranny. One person in Parliment force this bill through using Human Rights as a guise.
    Everyone with a brain can see that!

    A democratic proccess did pass this bill. Given that it was a free vote there wasnt even party pressure.

    So what leads you to think that one person forced this bill through and how did she do that? Where is the difference to all other bills? What makes Louisa Wall so tyranically powerful in this particular case?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    the Catholic Church banned Christians from observing the Sabbath Day in 365CE

    This is no different from the Catholic Church saying that murder is now no longer a sin, or that it’s okay – compulsory in fact – to take Yahweh’s name in vain.

    No different at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    Koo – This worst than where I came from! Help!

    So we understand, I ask the obvious question. Where are you from?
    You have access to a computer. Find out how laws are made here, Try –
    http://www.parliament.nz/CmsSystem/Templates/Documents/DetailedListing.aspx?NRNODEGUID=%7b76EF3072-E96F-4371-8A64-F7D6E19D0AFF%7d

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Perhaps this poor immigrant doesn’t think the institute of marriage belongs to Parliament, it belongs to men and women eligible to get married, as it has since time immemorial.

    Of course having found we can vote ourselves anything we want, like a standard of living we can’t pay for, this tomfoolery pales into insignificance.

    Arseholes are cheap today
    Cheaper than yesterday
    Young men are half-a-crown
    Standing up or lying down
    The old buggers got their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    Republican senator now supports gay marriage.

    What’s sickening is that he only changed his mind when he found out his son was gay.

    It’s like those politicians who support the War on Drugs yet when their son or daughter is caught in possession it suddenly becomes a ‘personal matter’ requiring medical treatment rather than being flung into prison.

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    What’s sickening is that he only changed his mind when he found out his son was gay

    Better late than never…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Koo (25 comments) says:

    WOW! Talking about ‘gay bashing’ – all the gays are here to bash me!
    Democratic? Are you joking?
    How can it be democratic when the voice of the people are not heard!

    Lets call for a referendum for a fair play! This is true freedom and democratic!
    What are you afraid of?

    I no means a ‘poor immigrant’ this shows you are a discriminating bunch!
    Bring it on!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    discriminating

    Which means “having refined taste or good judgement.” Thanks for the compliment :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. SPC (5,665 comments) says:

    wat, there is no name for the one God. It’s “the God/Allah to the Arab Moslem, its the “eternal” God to a Jew. People confuse the Hebrew word for eternal with the adjective being a name, there are many other Hebrew names for God (merciful/all powerful), one common theme they are all adjectives to describe God, none are names.

    Names are used to differentiate two of the same kind, by concept there is only one God thus the term God/deity etc is all that is used, not any name – thus all names are used in vain.

    When Moses is said to ask God what God’s name is, it is an insult to God and deserves the pithy response “I am the eternal” you mere mortal. And the only relationship between the eternal and the mortal is this -“I have been and I am am and I will be across all the generations of your ancestors and your descendants – and they shall keep a period of time as their rest to remember this” (sabbath and also the week of unleavened bread/Passover-seder) and the most important thing of all -” I can resurrect the dead and bring you across all your generations into my Kingdom of God/rest”.

    Which is why Jews are sabbath day keepers as their 6 days of travel one day of rest journey of many weeks across 40 years into their covenant nation inheritance was just the protoype for a lifetime on Earth unto death. Earth being the dominion of the creation of the 6 days. Jews, Christians and Moslems just disagree on the terms for entry into God’s rest/heaven.

    The Jews retain the 10 Commandments as base, sabbath day keeping, Christians call Jesus Lord of the day of resurrection and most gather on Sundays and some cite Pentecost as the reason for this, Moslems observe the 6th day as one of rest (as of the Earth of the 6 days of creation) and keep the 5 pillars of their faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Pete George (23,814 comments) says:

    An interesting part of Auchinvole’s speech:

    Marriage is not an unchanging institution, and although most of its institutional aspects have been laudable for men, they have often been less than favourable for women.

    Some statistics to show this change to the institution are quite illuminating.
    23% of marriages are conducted in a registry office
    32% of marriages are conducted in a church
    45% of marriages are conducted by independent marriage celebrants.

    That’s quite a large shift away from church weddings within less than a lifetime.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Koo (25 comments) says:

    Dear Mr Pete George

    Let’s forget about the statistics.

    Let focus on the ‘real issue’ of Gay Marriage Bill.
    I am only voicing my opinions like everyone else does – Freedom of Speech!

    I would like to see a real democratic process of a bill/law being passed that is everyone has a say.
    Whatever the outcome, I will accept since we all have a aay.

    THIS IS FAIR PLAY! Isn’t it? New Zealand is supposed to be a democratic country, right?
    A referemdum is the way to go!

    I am not here to bash anyone or discriminate anyone. All I want is to have a say and not just depend on some Parlimentarians to pass a law without consulting the rest of us!

    Now, how would you like it if the reverse is happening and they pass a law that disadvantaged the gays?
    I would said its unfair and will still say referendum is the way to go!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    Koo – so all votes in parliament on all issues should be decided by referenda, then?

    Why not the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Koo (25 comments) says:

    Good point Rodders.

    I call for a referendum because this is a ‘social’ Bill will affects the religious, non religious people and people different of ethnic groups.

    It is not like other bill of tax, budget and infrastructure etc.

    Why are you afraid of referendum?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    Koo – not afraid at all. Neither the Same Sex marriage bill nor the Drainlayers bill affect me at all.
    I should comment though that I understand that Switzerland, for example (beholden to referenda) only gave universal sufferage to women 40 years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    We don’t need a referendum, or any thing like it.

    It’s simple, the gummit is NOT making homosexual marriage compulsory. If you don’t wish to marry someone of the same sex. Don’t. No one will think to badly of you for not using that part of the legislation.

    Hell, we won’t even mind if some of you decide not to marry anyone. Honestly, it’s not a problem, in some cases from what I’ve read on here, it’s probably better if you do not inflict yourselves on some other poor soul for life.

    Most of all, the government has guaranteed NOT to make the missionary position illegal, so most of you will still be able to carry on in your same traditional manner, boring the living hell out of whoever you’ve managed to trap for eternity! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Koo (25 comments) says:

    Thanks for pointing that Rodder. I already know that.
    Good on you for not being afraid of referendum.

    Yeah right, there is no discrimination of this Gay Marriage Bill!
    Scott had already pointed out that if a marriage celebrant who is comfortable to marry a gay couple for e.g., then she will be penanlised in some way. This to me is discrimination.

    I do not wish to debate this all over again Judith. See former feeds posted by Scott.
    People do their homework.
    Seem like you too are afraid of referendum.

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

    I meant if a marriage celebrant who is NOT comfortable to marry a gay couple then she/he will be penalised…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Koo (19) Says:
    March 16th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
    ————————-

    Not the least bit afraid of a referendum, I just think it is a waste of time, because even if successful, it will only be temporary. Like it or not the rest of the world has accepted that human rights include the right FOR ALL to have the same rights. Sooner or later it will happen, so it may as well be now.

    If we have that much money to throw around on a referendum for something that will sooner or later be challenged in the Courts and win, then lets spend it on actually improving the lives of people who are suffering and in pain, rather than on the whims of groups of people with a common imaginary friend.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    KOO, I suggest if you want a referendum, then you start collecting the 300,000 odd signatures you require to call for it.

    If the feeling is as strong as you say it is, then it shouldn’t take you long at all.

    Pointless calling for one on here, you actually have to get off your butt and do something about it, if you feel that strongly.

    If you don’t, then this bill will be passed at the next sitting, you can bet your uptight butt on it.

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

    Thanks for expressing your views Judith.

    Money versus justice? Are you saying just because it costs money so we cannot have a democratic process – referendum?

    What about those people who arrive in this country like Ahmad Zawi and the taxpayers spent a few millions dollars to fight for his justice? Are you saying this is a waste of money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Koo (25 comments) says:

    So appreciate your input Judith.
    You bet I won’t be sitting on my butt!
    I have my team of people collecting signatures via the internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Yes, it is a waste of money. A complete and total waste of money.

    People have the right to find happiness by any legal means possible.
    If two people believe that being married will bring them that happiness, then I am not about to stand in the their way. In fact, I am more than happy to spend money on stopping others from standing in their way.

    I don’t care if they are the same sex. It doesn’t worry me. I have no problem with what other people do in their own homes providing it is legal, not too noisy, and doesn’t involve me, my partner, or my dog. The budgie I’m negotiable on.

    There are way too many serious problems facing the human species and this planet – two men, two women, a man and a woman, finding happiness with each other by making a serious commitment – is not going to harm my world or my grandchildren’s world in any way.

    Uptight people that like to impose themselves on others and tell them how they should live their lives by refusing to allow them the same rights that have, on the other hand do worry me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Koo (22) Says:
    March 16th, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    ————————-

    Here’s a hint for you. Internet petitions are notoriously unreliable and given very little credence.

    I suggest you be a good little girl, or boy, or whatever you are, and start knocking on doors and actually get hard signatures. Your internet petition will be thrown out, that is one thing you can bet on.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Koo (25 comments) says:

    Appreciate the helpful hint, Judith.
    Thank you.

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

    Scott had already pointed out that if a marriage celebrant who is comfortable to marry a gay couple for e.g., then she will be penanlised in some way. This to me is discrimination.

    Besides not being true for religious celebrants, would you be okay if a marriage celebrant would be able to refuse a marraige to say, asians, because she is not comforable with them? Would you still think that the marriage celebrant is being discriminated against.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Pete George (23,814 comments) says:

    I think parliament has dealt with it this bill quite adequately, I don’t see a referendum as necessary.

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

    Pete George – You are entitled to your opinion so do I!

    Excuse Eszett – you are being discriminating – what have Asian got to do with this?
    You presumptiously concluded that I am Asian.
    FYI – Europeans (West and East), Africans, Middle Eastern, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians, Ukarainians and the list goes on – believe Marriage to be between a Man and Woman.

    Come up with something better.

    I have work to do now – busy campaigning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    People have the right to find happiness by any legal means possible.

    That would be persons. People and persons are not the same thing, regardless of parliament’s faith in the system.

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