Herald on marriage

April 17th, 2013 at 11:06 am by David Farrar

The editorial:

When the Marriage Equality Bill passes its final vote in Parliament, possibly tonight, it will signify a marked social change. Less than a decade ago Helen Clark’s Government dared not extend the definition of marriage to same-sex couples, offering them a legal equivalent called civil union. Since then, public opinion has undergone a sea change.

It has happened not only in New Zealand but in Australia, the United States and Europe. Quite suddenly, most people have come around to the view that homosexual commitments deserve equal recognition.

It is a change primarily linked to age. Younger people have grown up with gay and lesbian friends, class-mates and colleagues and see no reason not to allow their friends to marry.

In the US in 2004 opposition to was an electoral winner for the Republicans. In 2012 it was an electoral loser. And a poll in the US had just revealed that a majority of Republicans under 30 favour allowing same sex marriage with 51% in favour and 46% opposed.

The same poll also looks at views based on religion.

  • White evangelical Christians: 24% support/73% oppose
  • White non-evangelical Protestants: 54% support/43% oppose
  • White Catholics: 53% support/43% oppose
  • Hispanic Catholics: 54% support/35% oppose
  • African-American non-evangelical: 65% support/31% oppose
  • Jewish: 78% support/21% oppose

So a majority of (white) American Catholics support same sex marriage.

Thoughtful contributions to our opinion pages have argued that marriage between a man and a woman is too important to social cohesion for its heterosexual definition to be lost. Marriage, they said, is not simply a declaration of love and commitment, it is the legitimation of procreation and the formation of families.

If its definition is to be detached from that purpose and marriage is to mean any form of human bond, what next, they asked. Might a commitment of more than two people have a right to the same recognition? Polygamy is permitted in some cultures. Why restrict the recognition to sexual relationships? One woman who lived with her sister wrote about their enduring non-sexual life together and wondered whether, in the name of equality, they too should be allowed to marry.

Marriage, as a professor of law pointed out on our pages yesterday, has been instituted in every culture, tribe and race since antiquity as the union of a man and a woman. It has never, until now, included a category of relationships that have no reproductive capacity and cannot provide a child with the care of two biological parents.

A fair summary of the better arguments against.

Those who worry that something of value will be lost can probably relax. Laws cannot change the ordinary meaning of words such as marriage, bride, groom, husband, wife, mother and father. Marriages for heterosexuals, including the blessings that believers obtain from churches, will not be diminished.

It remains to be seen whether same-sex couples marry in large numbers but their right to do so will be a significant achievement, another legal statement of equality. The gay community’s fight for the right to marry pays tribute, in its way, to the inherent value of the institution.

I agree. Couple aspiring to marry is a good thing.

The debate will be over tonight, thank goodness. It’s been great to be part of a team working for this change. I respect that some are opposed to the change, but the opposition to civil unions proved misplaced – and I think this will prove the same.

While there has been some passionate views on both sides, I think it reflects well on New Zealand that we can have this debates generally without the nastiness and rancour you see in some countries.

A Herald story also has a useful breakdown by party for the second reading:

FOR

* National: 44 per cent of MPs
* Maori: 100 per cent
* United Future: 100 per cent
* Act: 100 per cent
* Labour: 91 per cent
* Green: 100 per cent
* Mana: 100 per cent.

AGAINST

* National: 56 per cent of MPs
* Labour: 9 per cent
* New Zealand First: 100 per cent
* Independent (Brendan Horan): 100 per cent.

From my point of view, it would have been nice to have the majority of National MPs voting in favour. But even if only 10 out of 59 National MPs were in favour, this law change would have occurred.

Tags: , ,

214 Responses to “Herald on marriage”

  1. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    While there has been some passionate views on both sides, I think it reflects well on New Zealand that we can have this debates generally without the nastiness and rancour you see in some countries.

    Rubbish – Kevin Hague has been feeding alleged correspondence from those who oppose to repeaters in order to mock and denigrate those who disagree with this flaky thing.

    In reality this is an attack on the West which was built on the twin pillars of Family and Church and the real purpose of gay “marriage” is to undermine both.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Harriet (4,013 comments) says:

    Having a wedding ring on one finger and a fully loaded 24 carrot ring on the next, is not concecrating a Marriage, rather, it’s desecrating it. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (6,734 comments) says:

    It doesn’t “signify a marked social change”.

    It marks the ever growing role of radical minority activism in long standing and ancient social relationships.

    It marks the failure of conservatism to combat that radicalism,indeed our ” conservatives” are aidding and abetting far left radicalism.

    It marks poor political thinking on the part of our “leaders”

    and it marks yet another ignoring of the electorate in matters very important to our society.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sector 7g (229 comments) says:

    “I respect that some are opposed to the change”

    Your actions spoke louder than these words David.
    You didn’t “Respect those that oppose change”.
    You denigrated, bullied and smeared , just like a Helen Clark election campaign.
    It was shameful and disgusting to anyone that witnessed it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    So I see one of two things happening:

    A) The fundies (sorry…) the conservatives here are correct in the assumption that the majority of people are dead against this and the Conservative Party will sweep into victory next election.

    or

    b) Absolutely nothing will happen because the reality is most thinking people don’t actually give a shit.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Your description of the younger generation’s attitude is IMHO spot on DPF.

    I don’t know many gays but I do know some. Another word for them is “people”; good, law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying people, and I don’t feel I have any moral right to deny them “marriage” as either a word or a bit of legal paper.

    I don’t know if I’d want to be adopted by a couple of gays, but I’d want even less to be adopted by a couple of the kind of people who would take it upon themselves to put down and discriminate against gays.

    This is an excellent moment. Fuck the haters. :-)

    Or perhaps don’t fuck them. They seem a pretty unattractive lot anyway…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    Well, when suicide rates remain exactly the same among the homosexual community after the legalisation of same-sex marriage, just as they have in overseas jurisdictions, perhaps people will come to their senses and realise that such problems aren’t coming from systemic discrimination (as we’ve been told ad nauseam by the liberals) but are a risk associated with the homosexual lifestyle itself. The ultimate result of acting in a way that is contrary to our design is human misery, and I think perhaps people will come to realise that in years to come from direct experience.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Younger people have grown up with gay and lesbian friends, class-mates and colleagues and see no reason not to allow their friends to marry.

    Gays are not a recent invention of the liberal left.

    The older generation grew up with just as many gays, the only difference is they were less aware of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. queenstfarmer (696 comments) says:

    I haven’t got involved in this debate (except for a brief flurry yesterday) because I personally don’t care whether or not the law passes (as the saying goes, unless they make it compulsory!), although FWIW I support it because the proponents have made a better-reasoned case than the opponents.

    To me the most interesting aspect is that the opponents have given a perfect example of how to lose a modern policy debate. What lessons will they learn?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Aredhel –

    Gays commit suicide because cunts in our society give them shit all the time.

    This isn’t “systemic” any more but it is definitely still out there.

    The ultimate result of “acting in a way that is contrary to our design” is that cunts chose to inflict misery upon them instead of minding their own business… and others like you then blame the victim for that misery. Good on you.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mandk (718 comments) says:

    DPF
    to say that some people oppose same sex marriage is not really very honest, is it?
    you wouldn’t claim that some people support it, would you?
    the fact is that there seems to have been a clear shift in opinion against, and I believe that is why the Herald Digipoll stopped asking the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Get ready for “anti bullying” legislation next, ostensibly to help combat “gay suicide” but in reality to criminalize the thoughts of anyone who take a view of homosexual behaviour that runs counter to the current progressive PC dictates.

    Also, expect public education to instruct our youngsters about the insidious danger of “heterosexism” – the bigoted assumption that heterosexuality is the normal human condition.

    These homosexual militants won’t rest until the wholesale abolition of any standards of morality and decency is complete and the societal mores of the day are remade in their own sordid image. And assuming that I believe (which I don’t) in the assurances given that none of this social engineering will affect religious liberties, that will happen soon enough. Churches and private organizations (like the BSA for example) will lose their tax exemptions of they don’t tow the line, as is happening in other parts of the word where this insanity has taken hold.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck, yes that does concern me too. Even though I am ok with gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Harriet (4,013 comments) says:

    “…..Younger people have grown up with gay and lesbian friends, class-mates and colleagues and see no reason not to allow their friends to marry….”

    Selling Marriage out to the everyday common arsehole!

    The meaning of Marriage to these thoughtless and all agreeing kids, is just: Besties4eva.

    In the future when 2 of these kids want something ‘special’ to celebrate between themselves, and their future children – it will no longer be there.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. OTGO (457 comments) says:

    But it’s not really marriage is it? Those of us who married our wives, had children and are still happily married know in our hearts that gay marriage is not marriage.
    I don’t care what argument the liberals put up for it – it just isn’t marriage.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    I actually think tonight’s vote will – in the long run – be detrimental to the gay political agenda. It is a push too far and this issue will reshape the numbers emphasis in the next parliament. Conservative voters feel pretty let down and disenfranchised by National and will now act (Prostitution legalised by one abstention; Smacking; Euthanasia; no referendum on changing Marriage, etc).

    This is not about religion; just a voice for traditional conservative voters (including many gay people, ala GayConservative.com et al). It has spawned a new party in the UK in reaction to the so-called “Conservative” Tories who were beaten into third, recently.

    A giant has been stirred…

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Marriage, as a professor of law pointed out on our pages yesterday, has been instituted in every culture, tribe and race since antiquity as the union of a man and a woman. It has never, until now, included a category of relationships that have no reproductive capacity and cannot provide a child with the care of two biological parents.

    False….This Professor doesn’t know his facts. American Indian tribes had a form of Male-Male bonding….the Chinese too. In the early Eastern church Men were “married” within it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “But it’s not really marriage is it? Those of us who married our wives, had children and are still happily married know in our hearts that gay marriage is not marriage.
    I don’t care what argument the liberals put up for it – it just isn’t marriage.”

    Well that’s good for you. You can cherish that until you die.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Harriet (4,013 comments) says:

    “….Gays commit suicide because cunts in our society give them shit all the time….”

    RRM……the suicide rate in San Fransico, the most gay friendly place on earth, is exactly the same as other comparable cities such as NY, Paris, Toronto, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland and Wellington. Drug, alcohol and depression are too.

    And that infomation comes from US Gay Health!

    ….anyway…..they were born that way……..:cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    @The scorned

    “It has never, until now, included a category of relationships that have no reproductive capacity”

    people with fertility problems, choose not to have children and those with down syndrome can still marry

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    http://voices.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-as-traditional-as-straight-marriage-87236.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. kowtow (6,734 comments) says:

    urban redneck

    I expect there will be legislation like you say down the track. Most likely Green or Labour.

    But not to worry, in the meantime they will us the law as it stands already. It’s a crime to insult or offend!

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. xy (130 comments) says:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2552272/dire-warnings-over-gay-marriage-likely-to-fade.asx was nice to hear on the radio this morning. Good quotes from the repealing of the defense against marital rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    marital rape.

    No such thing.

    There should be a law against women withholding sex to manipulate men. That is a form of “abuse”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Tautaioleua (266 comments) says:

    What a load of nonsense, DPF. When the youth sectors from each political party joined forces to issue a statement of support for same sex marriage, not one of them consulted young people outside of their executives.

    Young Labour said it’s their biggest priority, but how did they come to that? did they consult the younger party membership? what if youth unemployment was considered more important? (I think it should be)

    No youth sector bothered to consult peers who were outside of the executive. You know, the ordinary youth. Apparently, they speak for young people now and don’t need to consult their peers.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Harriet (4,013 comments) says:

    “….[It has never, until now, included a category of relationships that have no reproductive capacity]….people with fertility problems, choose not to have children and those with down syndrome can still marry…”

    That’s a medical reason.

    No one would seriously suggest these people are an arguement for gay Marriage – unless they were cruel.

    Imagine some young girl who got shot by a robber, and had her womb destroyed, are you seriously suggesting Contrarian that as part of her healing process, is that she be told ‘you can’t get Married’ ?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    “It’s a crime to insult or offend!”

    I am offended and insulted by that law… Now what ?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. greenjacket (348 comments) says:

    “Marriage, as a professor of law pointed out on our pages yesterday, has been instituted in every culture, tribe and race since antiquity as the union of a man and a woman.”
    And as the union of a man and many women, and as the union of two children to create a political alliance… Equally, social attitudes and laws regarding divorce have changed throughout the ages.

    “It has never, until now, included a category of relationships that have no reproductive capacity and cannot provide a child with the care of two biological parents.”
    This is a bizarre statement – infertile and elderly people have been marrying. When I married my wife, our vows were to love each other, care for each other, etc, till death do us part, but there was nothing about children, so maybe this law professor believes our marriage is illegal?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Viking2 (10,752 comments) says:

    When the Marriage Equality Bill passes its final vote in Parliament, possibly tonight,

    Peace on Earth and Kiwiblog.

    Option b) in my view.
    or

    b) Absolutely nothing will happen because the reality is most thinking people don’t actually give a shit.

    Best thing. Those that hate others because of their genetic disposition will go to some other blog to vent their spleen.

    Sad really.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Ed Snack (1,540 comments) says:

    Great survey to quote David, about as honest as the rest of the debate has been. Why didn’t you quote one from an independent organization instead of a partisan push poll ?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Viking2, with gay marriage legal, no global warming and god unknowable, I predict KB will soon be closed down.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    As civil unions have been mentioned, what a shame that the proponents of that bill were dishonest when they loudly proclaimed that of COURSE they didn’t want to change marriage, of COURSE marriage would remain between a man and a woman, of COURSE civil unions were all they wanted. David Benson-Pope, Chris Carter, Margaret Wilson …

    Whether you support or oppose this bill, wouldn’t it be better if there had been a little more honesty from BOTH sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (6,734 comments) says:

    kea

    you are insulting and offensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. mara (642 comments) says:

    Colin Craig and Winston Peters are going to do well out of this and more power to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. scrubone (2,972 comments) says:

    Marriages for heterosexuals, including the blessings that believers obtain from churches, will not be diminished.

    If you take something, make a fake copy, and then pass a law insisting that the fake be called and respected the same as the original, that does damage. It denigrates the original as something less than it actually is.

    And of course, it’s outright stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Manolo (12,644 comments) says:

    GayKiwiBlog delivers, as expected, very important news on this very important subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    I don’t know if Colin Craig will find enough people wanting to continue this debate indefinitely, but he says he will carry on the fight.

    Fight against gay marriage will go on

    The Conservative Party believes the fight against gay marriage will continue after tonight’s reading, even though it looks likely to pass.

    The third reading of the Marriage Amendment Bill gets underway in Parliament this evening – with many heading for the public gallery to witness the historic moment.

    It would make New Zealand the 13th country in the world to allow gay marriage.

    But Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says even if the bill does pass through – it won’t be the end for those campaigning against the idea.

    “The way to affect change from here is through a binding referenda.

    “The Conservative Party is the party that wants to bring in binding referenda, and if we get enough support at the next election we’ll be doing that.”

    Even if his party gets into Parliament next year they would have to get enough support for a binding referendum from other MPs (very unlikely).

    By the time a referendum was held, if he gets a favourable result, there will have been two or three years of gay marriages. Would he annul them? Or just stop anymore?

    Craig seems to be using it as an ongoing vote rallying tool, like he has used smacking – both with little realistic chance of changing anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Harriet (4,013 comments) says:

    “…..[I don’t care what argument the liberals put up for it – it just isn’t marriage.]…..Well that’s good for you. You can cherish that until you die….”

    Our kids and grandkids will too, and also, unlike gays again, long long after we die! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    kowtow (4,112) Says:

    April 17th, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    kea

    you are insulting and offensive.

    It is a gift :)

    Insulted & offended are subjective unprovable feelings. They are a description of your (claimed) mental state, not a description of anything external. But thanks for the unselfconscious insight into your mental state.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    Whether you support or oppose this bill, wouldn’t it be better if there had been a little more honesty from BOTH sides

    I think that most if not all who were supporting the civil union as an alternative and nothing more intended were being honest at the time.

    Public attitudes to homosexuality and gay marriage have changed a lot in the last decade, as is evident around the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    Pete G, I don’t think this will go away, not before the 2014 election anyway. The media will follow up all the interesting consequential story angles (the first gay wedding; the changes to the Marriage certificates to delete terms; tax changes to gay couples; celebrated cases of “discrimination” re a church hall ban, not baking a wedding cake, not taking gay wedding photos, etc etc).

    Smacking is still right up there and that was years ago. I think the referendum debacle has given this issue added legs politically.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    iMP – do you really think smacking is “right up there”. I don’t recall it being a prominent issue in the last election, other than Colin Craig I don’t know if anyone campaigned on it.

    And I really don’t see a referendum horse getting legs after the marriage equality stable door is already closed.

    Campaigning next election on changing smacking or marriage may attract some wishful thinkers but realists will ignore it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Harriet (4,013 comments) says:

    “…..I don’t know if Colin Craig will find enough people wanting to continue this debate indefinitely, but he says he will carry on the fight….”

    PG – successive people have been fighting to save Marriage for 2000 yrs now!

    Naturaly PG – they’ve been breeding for the cause – as that is the natural state of Marriage: a mechanism of procreating!

    People naturally value things PG, like children. Their own children.

    And future generations of young people will have better values than ‘sameness’ as it’s boring. A non achievment. Ordinary. Forgetful. Uninteresting. Backward.

    “….By the time a referendum was held, if he gets a favourable result, there will have been two or three years of gay marriages. Would he annul them? Or just stop anymore?….”

    Just stop them.
    They’ll die out like they have in the past…somewhere…wherever it was. Nothing of gay Marriages will be left as that is it’s natural state: No offspring.

    Gay Marriages PG, have to become a community project with the involvement of at least a 3rd person for children to ‘appear’ in the 2 person ‘Marriage’. That’s not Marriage PG – and you know it!

    The whole thing is a joke PG.

    Gays won’t debase themselves by getting ‘Married’ anytime to soon. As they have pride. Gay Pride! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Own goal.

    I would not be the only person who has shifted over recent debates from indifference to gay issues, to being strongly anti-gay.

    Gays have stolen from me. Not just a word, but what that word stands for.

    Gays have had for me what they always complained of not having for me – disrespect for my perspective.

    You have conspired to steal something that you were not entitled to. The word that has always meant an institution between a man and a woman. And along the way, you have uttered some of the worst hate speech against Christians that I have ever witnessed in a long life so far. I speak as an atheist, but your hate-speak against Christians has been loud, the loudest hate-speak, as I say, I’ve ever heard in my life.

    While you didn’t stray into my life, I tolerated you indifferently. But you have crossed the line, not me. Today you stray into my life, where I repeatedly told you I didn’t want you. Indifference ends with your crossing my line. Own goal.

    For all that, I am no longer indifferent to you. I now despise you. And you have chosen a cause which by its very nature will remind me over and over again, why I despise you.

    You should have left well-enough alone, gays, you should have left well-enough alone.

    The world has a tendency to go round in cycles. This will be an example of it.

    Essessem (essessemmed = past participle) = SSM will not last long in the world long-term-historical scheme of things.

    Once again in the near future, you will not be leaving well-enough alone. You will push past the point of being tolerated. You will not be able to help yourselves. And sooner than you expect, you will be sent back to where you deserve to be.

    You will remind us often of why gays have been despised throughout almost all of history, and people who right now are led by a guilt complex, will once again think for themselves and say – ‘no, this isn’t right’ – and – ‘perhaps there was good reason for gays not being generally liked’.

    Sooner than you think.

    You should have left well enough alone, gays.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    Pete, when you read through the Hansard record of the first reading of the Civil Union Bill, for example, and compare that to what is now being said … I find it very hard to believe that they were completely honest.

    You talk about public attitudes changing, but I’m specifically talking about MPs who were already pro-homosexual relationship and pro-civil union back in 2004.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Once again in the near future, you will not be leaving well-enough alone. You will push past the point of being tolerated. You will not be able to help yourselves. And sooner than you expect, you will be sent back to where you deserve to be.

    You will remind us often of why gays have been despised throughout almost all of history, and people who right now are led by a guilt complex, will once again think for themselves and say – ‘no, this isn’t right’ – and – ‘perhaps there was good reason for gays not being generally liked’.

    Sooner than you think.

    You should have left well enough alone, gays.

    Are you going to make a bomb? Shoot them? Or just beat a few up in the street?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    No, simply change the legislation back to what it should be to reflect the democratically more popular view – once people get over their current obsession with guilt complexes over everything.

    It is gays who think in hostile warmongering terms, not people like me. Bombs indeed. Shame on you.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    My bad then.

    So how much legislation needs to be changed to get gays back “where they deserve to be”…?

    Re-criminalise homosexuality?

    Reinstate the provocation / “gay panic” defense for murder?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Mind you, if I hear of any primary school teacher teaching my grandsons about what is the safe way to put a penis into an anus – as currently happens in the USA state of Massachusetts – then I might have to think about a (political) bomb or two.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    RRM, you are being deliberately silly for silly effect. Got anything sensible to contribute?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Actually silly bill you were offended by me last night and I am as gay as a bull in with the heifers. Its the f undies that are offensive. Dennis you and others with your incessant focus on anal sex FFS woman can be gay and its not your fuckin business what any one does in bed. As too marriage to me its a contract between two loving people. To claim it is solely about sex and procreation is pushing us back into the dark ages The pill happened in the sixty’s get with the program.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    No, you mentioned “change the legislation back to what it should be to reflect the democratically more popular view”

    and

    “gays have been despised throughout almost all of history, and people who right now are led by a guilt complex, will once again think for themselves and say – ‘no, this isn’t right’ – and – ‘perhaps there was good reason for gays not being generally liked’.”

    – those are your words not mine, I’m not making this up.

    So what legislation do you think needs to change?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Liar, Griff.

    Don’t bring discussion from other threads and lie about it in the new context.

    This is how girls argue. I said nothing that you claim I said about anal sex.

    Don’t lie for starters, but mostly don’t lie across threads. It is bad internet etiquette.

    You want to talk with me here, talk to me about what I’ve said here, instead of lying about what I didn’t say elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    And like I said above, liar Griff, I said that until this debate, I couldn’t care less who you slept with.

    But THIS issue is the one which has turned me against gays. Because you have stolen from me.

    You crossed the line between us. I didn’t.

    I repeatedly said, do what you like, gays, just leave my “marriage” alone.

    YOU crossed the line.

    Now stop misquoting me, girl-boy

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    SWB, perhaps you could provide a link to back up what you claimed in your 1.59pm post?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    SWB, the term gay is now linked to Good As You. A new meaning in addition to the old.

    If the multiple meaning of a word is problematic to you, then you have a wider problem with the English language.

    That marriage can mean a marriage between two virgins of the same religion or church, or a widow and widower making a late in life marriage, or two divorced people with their own children forming a blended family, or a de facto couple marrying after their first child, or a couple who agree not to have children afterwards, or a couple who decide to have an open marriage, between a hooker and her long time partner, or between 2 men and two women.

    You have a problem with the last part because the only thing in common between all the earlier couples was being male and female?

    As for your vendetta against same sex couples because some advocated for the right to marry and some might, what about sharing that vendetta with heterosexuals who also advocated for their right to marry. Or are you just searching for the right for vengeance when those you do not like claim equity with you. Have a problem with slaves, feminists and the Treaty?

    Still intend to vote for the Ansell party?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Because you have stolen from me.

    I repeatedly said, do what you like, gays, just leave my “marriage” alone.

    :lol: LOL, anyone would think the gays came into your house, kidnapped your wife and left a queer dude in your bed…

    Nothing’s been stolen from you, and nothing’s been done to your marriage.

    Your marriage is yours.

    A gay’s marriage is not yours, it’s his.

    And yet somehow, you think something is being stolen from you?

    And then you talk about Griff’s dishonesty…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    The debate will be over tonight, thank goodness.

    No, it won’t.
    It will be like abortion, and there will always be debate about it, especially when cases claiming ‘discrimination’ and hate speech come up (and they will). It’s not going to go away, so don’t think that it will.

    It’s been great to be part of a team working for this change.

    And what team is that exactly? So you’re admitting that your many, many posts on the subject were propaganda, designed to push the subject? Judging by the votes on the posts in here, I don’t think you succeeded – not here on KB anyway.
    I also see you’re having to resort to quoting overseas polls because the local ones aren’t very favourable to same sex marriage. One can’t forget that the Herald was shocked last time they had a poll because the numbers were 50/50.

    And the last couple of online polls (one on the NZ Herald site and one on Stuff), opinion has had a “sea change” in favour of traditional marriage. The last online Herald poll showed 55% saying marriage should remain between a man and woman as opposed to 39% saying it shoul dbe allowed between same sex couples. The Stuff poll showed only 32% support for the Marriage Amendment bill being passed, as opposed to 64% wanting to keep it as it is.

    IMAGE from Stuff poll 13th March 2013

    IMAGE from NZ Herald poll 23th March 2013

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    RRM, what legislation do I think should be changed?

    Well, as of right now, none. As of tomorrow, then that will probably be a different story.

    But you lot will not be able to rest on your laurels. Little bit by little bit, you will want more and more. You will not know when to leave well enough alone.

    Next in the gay creep, you will want sex education in schools to ‘normalise’ gay sex. You will want most of our health budget sidetracked from knee operations, and cardio-vascular problems, to being spent on fixing the results of your reckless and dirty sexual practices. You will continue to re-write the history books to blame everyone but yourselves for the 65 million people so far infected/dead from HIV/AIDS – more dead than died in WWII.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    What Ansell party is that, SPC?? You seem to have a vivid imagination.
    As for the rest of your post, you are just stirring, with nothing worth replying to.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Harriet, you say that the need for a third person to ensure children means that it’s not a proper marriage – do you then determine that infertile couples who use a sperm or egg donor or adopt are not really married either?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Okay, if ‘GAY’ now is to mean ‘Good As You’, then as usual you have gone a step too far. You just can’t help yourselves, can you?

    If this is the case, then I shall stop using your preferred word, and I’ll go back to using ‘poofter’. You wanted me to use ‘gay’ so out of deference to you, I used ‘gay’. Not any more, bucko.

    Another own goal. Learn to leave well enough alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    ps, minor correction – the image I said was for the Stuff poll was actually from the NZ Yahoo/Xtra website poll.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions, sounds like he is going to use this Bill as an excuse to leave his wife (because she was “stolen”)… and shack up with a poofter :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    SWB, you said you would vote for the Ansell party.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    SWB , you said that there was nothing in my post to reply to – it seems you meant, not until you could think of anything. Not much so far apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    Not forgetting that Louisa Wall is publicly lesbian, so the law change is really for her own personal interest. It’s just like Aristotle wrote in The Ethics, “men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.”

    It has less to do with equality and more to do with the abuse of power and position for personal gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    What Ansell Party would that be, SPC?

    You suggesting I would vote for a non-existent party. Are you alright, bucko?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. LiberalismIsASin (288 comments) says:

    Where to now for the conservative voter now that National has absolutely abandoned the right? Personally, I gave up voting when they legalised prostitution, it has become obvious to me at least that the lunatics are running the asylum.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Fletch – personal gain?

    Yes, because Louisa Wall is the only homosexual in New Zealand, and therefore she is the only person to benefit from this proposed law.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions (73) Says:
    April 7th, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    And btw, if John Ansell were to start a one-issue party, I would indeed vote for it.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/04/a_constitutional_issues_poll.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    RRM, give Silly Will Bunions back his “marriage” that you stole !

    He is very upset ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    RRM, her and less than 3% of the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    The debate will be over tonight, thank goodness.

    No, it won’t.
    It will be like abortion, and there will always be debate about it, especially when cases claiming ‘discrimination’ and hate speech come up (and they will). It’s not going to go away, so don’t think that it will.

    Cool. Hopefully DPF will post at least once a week on it, that should keep it going here at least.

    First post should be about the lesbian Muslim teacher of climate science from Every Street.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Time will do it. Unlike you lot, I have history well-and-truly on my side.
    Order will be restored in the fullness of, and according to democratic processes.
    Forever will do in terms of a deadline. Order will be restored to correct the current blip.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    I suspect some of you don’t appreciate what DPF is doing hosting these debates on this topic. He is

    1. allowing the opponents of the legislation to release their rage so that many opposing it can then move on having had their say.
    2. yet also to reinforce the convictions of the die hard opponents so they become activists for the Craig party.

    The expectation being that those voting for the Conservatives come equally from National, Labour and NZ First (thus it makes little difference if the party reaches the threshold – virtually impossible if the Ansell party runs and ensures both would fail).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Fletch. Three percent????????????????

    Try zero point zero three percent of the population who will essessem.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Kea; I’ll give it back to him of he promises never to use the “poofter” word again.

    Until then I’m keeping it in a small sequinned box on my mantelpiece, next to my little statue of the Virgin Mary in a condom.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    RRM, I accept your offer, and so promise.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Fletch – yes, and it’s shocking when you consider how much money there is in it for her and the rest of the 3%, isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    SWB, was history on the side of those who opposed the extension of the franchise to the working class without property, the abolition of slavery, the suffrage movement, the decriminalisation of same sex activity?

    Fletch, as to abortion, has any nation that allowed this ever then re-criminalised it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    RRM, do you mind if I put a virgin condom in a Mary.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Yes I do mind SWB, because your marriage is my business, and vice versa remember.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    SWB, your 1.19pm post is the sort of speech that a small gathering of fascists would gather to cheer on. Of course I would not say that makes you a fascist unless you say you are …

    Sure you would not prefer Ansell to run a multiple issue party? Abolish the Treaty/man and woman marriage law/an end to taking in refugees and immigrants/an end to foreigners buying our land and property?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Reg (544 comments) says:

    The Liberal fraternity’s catch phrases are “Nothing well happen”, “nothing will change”, “the sun will still rise tomorrow”
    They said the same about the legalising of Prostitution. Now the shocking situation on the streets of South Auckland has caused even Georgina Beyer to admit that the liberalisation of prostitutiion was a mistake.
    The sun will rise tomorrow, but on a society whose perception of right and wrong is a little more skewed than the day before.
    It will rise on teenagers just a little more confused whether they are Arthurs or Marthas and a little less likely to value a relationship that has changed from being what they know it should be, to what they think society thinks they should think it should be. In the long term these changes lead to moral anarchy, loss of stability in society and dispair.
    You’ll win to night, but remember we warned you.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Reg, the situation in South Auckland is the same it was when the decriminalisation occurred. Many of those supporting the change thought it would reduce street prostitution and thus did not focus legislation on regulations for it. All Beyer said was that legislation should be amended to require street workers to be licensed, to enable easier policing of those (under 18) unable to get a licence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. gump (1,232 comments) says:

    @Silly Will Bunions

    Your idiotic posts make me laugh.

    Thank-you for making me laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Reg, so people should be as they are supposed to be and not who they are?

    Is it important as to who decides on how we are supposed to be, a religion, a church, a cult, a one party state …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    gump, SWB was probably thrown out of the MSP for impersonating the Duke of Wellington.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    SPC, society doesn’t have to conform to what people are, if what people are goes against the norms of society.
    Marriage is a societal and cultural norm, defined as being between a man and a woman because that is the innate nature of the complementarity between a man and woman that marriage is built upon, and the fostering and bringing up of children that are a natural part of that unit.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Fletch, and who would/could “marry” is the issue that has been different across time and culture. In some times and cultures de facto cohabitation was the form of “marriage”. In some cultures extended families raised the children, in some it took a village (in the larger more complex society of today we use child care and schools).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Is it ok to have female only gyms? yes
    Is it ok to have male only gyms? yes
    Is it ok to have male only sports teams? yes
    Female sports teams? yes
    Boys toilets? yes
    Girls toilets? yes
    Gay bars? yes
    Gay version of the olympics? (gay games) yes

    A tradition for men and women in a long term straight relationship?? no! No! No!! No!!!!! NO!!!
    Bigot! hater! homophobe!!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Yes you can still have straight marriage shunda…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    I note the public service that Kiwiblog allows a certain minority to pretend they are more numerous than they are by wanking off on the thumbs. This is the balance to DPF supporting the same sex marriage legislation.

    Something for them to do between using multiple addresses to vote on media on line polls?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    The gay marriage debate is like a lobby group demanding that we have unisex toilets as part of a push for fundamental human rights.

    Unisex toilets!! ya f@ckin hater fundamentalist bigots!!

    No more discwimminaayyyy-shun!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Something for them to do between using multiple addresses to vote on media on line polls?

    Aww gawwwd

    It’s a big conspiracy!!

    Either that or the majority think this bill is actually bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Shunda – a majority that only exists where, not in any scientific method sample public opinion poll, not in parliament – nowhere but on on-line polls. And in use of active thumbs … .

    As they say too much time idling with those thumbs,

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Bottoms up, chaps, tonight’s the night. Your boyfriend will be able to make an honest man of you tomorrow… :)

    Toast: It’s only 2 inches but it smells like a foot … ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. bc (1,252 comments) says:

    Kea @ 12.17pm
    Kea showing yet again his hatred (fear?) of women.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    The question was – would I vote for a single-issue Ansell party.
    I said that if there ever were such a party, then I would vote for it.

    Be assured that if Ansell stood on anything other than a single-issue basis,
    then he would become just another compromised politician like all the rest,
    and I would do my damnedest to make sure no-one voted for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. wreck1080 (3,533 comments) says:

    On one hand I don’t care if gays get married, but , on the other I think it is unnecessary.

    “Marriage” equals between man & woman.

    Thats it, why change?

    Gays can have their own terminology so who cares? Why do they care? They get the same rights so nothing is different.

    What actually is differnet between ‘marriage’ and civil union?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Lock up your daughters. No perverted (boy/girl) sex tonight.
    I said that I had only indifference to boy/boy sex up until this issue raised ugly heads.

    Tonight methinks that the entire length and breath of Aotearoa will be in need of Aeroguard.
    Pak n Save have already sold out of it nationally.

    (Very good, Dennis, bottoms up indeed).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    bc (835) Says:
    April 17th, 2013 at 5:58 pm
    Kea @ 12.17pm
    Kea showing yet again his hatred (fear?) of women.

    What a good eunuch. Your feminist masters will be pleased with your parroting, though they will still treat you with the contempt you have earned.

    It is always amusing, in a disturbing way, watching you creeps at work. You make out you know what women want. But they regard your type with disdain. Most women do not rate Kiwi guys very highly, but lust after macho, chauvinistic, sexist Italian & Spanish men, who wolf whistle, grab their arses and expect to be mothered when they eventually leave home at 40 :)

    Keep it up. Your making the rest of us look good.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Kea, that would explain the one child family in modern Italy, life at home with mother till 40 then living with a partner older than mother was when they were born.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    SPC, well many Italian men are useless sexist mummies boys, but our women go crazy over them. I have to laugh at how un PC women really are. Bless them :)

    Of course soon we can all marry an Italian guy when the Compulsory Sodomy Act is passed soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Kea, it would never last, the first fight and they would retreat back to Rome.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    Helen Clark will be proud.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Yeah men are such cock teasers. ha ha ha

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Will the real Adrian Strange please step forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Helen Clark will be proud.

    Clark is not driven by concern for gays. She is driven by a hatred of men and the society that never let her really fit in during her formative years. She is a deeply disturbed person.

    But yes, she will be pleased with this, as it was her and her feminist army that set this in motion. This is a direct result of our feminised society. The rot set in when we thought it would be clever to let women vote. The experiment failed terribly, but now they control society and there is no turning back.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Fancy having a guilt complex about even Helengrad.

    You fought a galant fight bum-boys. Enjoy it while it lasts.

    Promise me you will use a condom EVERY TIME, and all will be forgiven.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Silly Willy, condoms are for putting over Virgin Mary figures. But thanks for your concern.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Society doesn’t exist….individuals do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. pq (728 comments) says:

    I know this is off subject Farrar but you seem to have been diverted into trivial pursuit. Quite important things are going on all the time you carry on about Gay marriage . We don’t care . I am not saying that social issues are not important Farrar, but you seem to be stuck in the rut.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    For every poll that says the haters are a majority, there’s one that says they aren’t:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/lightbox/national/politics/8560306?KeepThis=true&

    as at 20:15, 63% in favour, 32.5% opposed

    The sky is falling :-)
    Pretty soon gays are going to be calling themselves “married”!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    The Scorned (508) Says:
    April 17th, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    Society doesn’t exist….individuals do.

    There is no such thing as Society.
    – Margaret Thatcher, 1988

    There is no such thing as Margaret Thatcher.
    – Society, 2013

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. wiseowl (580 comments) says:

    Of course there will be an explanation about the 3 News poll tonight.
    Couldn’t be right,surely.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    A sad day for New Zealand. But even sadder it will not be over. The church will get perhaps a temporary respite but as they did for civil unions which was only a temporary way station on the slippery slope to gay marriage, so will the opting out of churches and pastors to perform gay marriage will be discontinued once the coast is clear. For the goal is total acceptance of gayness. If the church holds out then sooner rather than later it will be persecuted.

    Also look out for marriage celebrants to be prosecuted under the human rights act for refusing to perform gay weddings. And the wedding cake maker to be prosecuted for refusing to make a gay wedding cake. That will happen pretty soon once this legislation goes through.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Scott, what does that say about the church if gay marriage is more popular?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Scott: I totally accept gayness.

    And I say that as a man with a wife and 2 children, and no homosexual inclinations whatsoever.

    Live and let live; judge not lest ye be judged.

    And the churches deserve to take a kicking for the whole millenium they’ve spent hypocritically perverting Jesus’ teachings of compassion and charity into implements for segregating societies, telling people what to do and maintaining political power by fear and oppression.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Well all I can say is that in my church tonight a small group of men is meeting for fellowship and BBQ and bible study. This group provides support for these men. Two of the guys are really lonely as their wives left them and they appreciate the care and support they receive from the other men.

    On Thursday there is a youth group where a dozen high school students meet for games and bible study and food. For one girl this is the highlight of her week as when she is at school she is bullied because she is so shy and quiet.

    On Friday another home group will meet for the older folk who love the fellowship and bible study. The leader of this group makes sure she visits the group members regularly as well if they can’t make the group as some of them are getting on in years and are in poor health.

    On Saturday the multicultural groups meet. These groups provide love and support for people from ethnic minorities who often find it tough in our community because they have a strange accent and sometimes don’t speak English well.

    On Sunday morning we will gather to worship God and fellowship together.

    On Sunday afternoon we will run a service for the people of the local old folks home who love Jesus but because of poor health cannot get to a local church service. On that afternoon we bring along some of our youth who will talk with the oldies and get them a cup of tea. The old people love to see the youth.

    But hey if that is “the churches deserve to take a kicking for the whole millenium they’ve spent hypocritically perverting Jesus’ teachings of compassion and charity into implements for segregating societies, telling people what to do and maintaining political power by fear and oppression” then yes we stand convicted.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    What it says about the church scott is that acceptance of others and a kind heart begets the same in return, a puritanical and judgemental attitude gets you the same

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    And the churches deserve to take a kicking for the whole millenium they’ve spent hypocritically perverting Jesus’ teachings of compassion and charity

    Errrr Reverend RRM, you may want to refer to your well thumbed bible, to fact-check that statement.

    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; their blood shall be upon them.

    And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Scott , that is all good, but when do you stone people to death for working on Sunday and being non virgin brides ?

    Oh and for what about cheeky kids ?

    From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Hahaha, refer to the bible for a fact check, fuck uh crack me up!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    expat (3,914) Says:
    April 17th, 2013 at 9:13 pm
    What it says about the church scott is that acceptance of others and a kind heart begets the same in return, a puritanical and judgemental attitud

    Nope it does not say that. Well sort of, in places. Overall it is violent and intolerant. And please do not bother with the “Jesus changed all the old testament” line. Because Jesus said he was there to enforce the old laws. He was clear about that. Jesus also came up with eternal torture in hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    “Scott , that is all good, but when do you stone people to death for working on Sunday and being non virgin brides ?
    Oh and for what about cheeky kids ?”

    Sorry Kea forgot those items. Stonings happen on Monday. Cheeky kids are on Fridays at kids club, but generally we let them live.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    I don’t know who is more insane, kea or rrm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    I think the debate is seriously degenerating.

    Like I said earlier. I’m an atheist, but I have never seen such hate speak in my life. Against Christians.

    Leave well enough alone, poo-pushers. You have won this round. No need to add to your tally of enemies by further courting enemies.

    Leave well enough alone. But being the people that you are, you will never learn to leave well enough alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Scott (1,312) Says:
    April 17th, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    “Scott , that is all good, but when do you stone people to death for working on Sunday and being non virgin brides ?
    Oh and for what about cheeky kids ?”

    Sorry Kea forgot those items. Stonings happen on Monday. Cheeky kids are on Fridays at kids club, but generally we let them live.

    You big softies.

    I went with a friend to Church recently. I felt foolish turning up with my big sack of rocks.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    That’s a rather long bow expat.

    What have I said that makes you think I’m insane?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Harriet (4,013 comments) says:

    “…..And the wedding cake maker to be prosecuted for refusing to make a gay wedding cake. That will happen pretty soon once this legislation goes through…..”

    It’s pretty easy to burn stuff- and make it taste like crap.

    Nothing like advertising being word of mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Now must get back to “telling people what to do and maintaining political power by fear and oppression”

    Some facts about what gay marriage has done in Canada-

    Some states have forced gay indoctrination in schools including kindergarten and parents have had to leave their states to avoid this indoctrination.

    A lesbian woman, who was married to another woman, met a man and then suddenly changed her so-called innate sexuality and wanted to keep the baby she gave birth to while married to the other woman. The court awarded part custody to the other woman because she was legally a mother too; this woman ended up having naked baths with her daughter who was 10 years old. The birth mother had to abduct her own daughter and flee. Others that helped the woman flee were punished by the police.

    A mayor was sued for not allowing a gay parade because it was against his religious beliefs.

    The owners of a bed and breakfast were sued for not allowing a homosexual couple stay in their private house.

    A printer who was a supporter of traditional marriages was sued for not printing gay material.

    In Canada, they have something similar to affirmative action in respect to gay adoption; in other words, a percentage of children must go to gay couples.

    He said homosexuals don’t want marriage because it doesn’t fit with their 10-plus sexual partners per year. It was only gay activists that pushed for it because “we need this,” according to them. They needed it to ‘normal’ the homosexual lifestyle.

    http://www.theconservative.co.nz/?q=node/250

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Leave well enough alone, poo-pushers.

    Who are the “poo-pushers” ?

    Is Redbaiter one of them ? :)

    I bet it is him !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    The disturbing thing about tonight’s debate is the way so many MPs openly ridicule NZ citizens.
    Astonishingly arrogant.

    While the people they are mocking may not be the best individuals to define this debate, there is a principle involved that clearly very few NZ politicians give a damn about.

    The pro’s were mostly talking about hurt feelings, suicide, and other issues that actually plague all of society and have very little to do with the issue at hand.

    It confirms that the main thrust is about social capital, not legalizing love.
    In that regard they a profoundly kidding themselves if they think this will make any positive difference for the poor bullied kids of this nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Looks like the national anthem is next on the chopping block.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda, it will make very little difference to anyone. That is one of the main reasons to allow it. Our default setting should always be more liberty, not less.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    SO there it is: gay marriage passes into law.
    A sad decision that lessons the dignity of both gay people and marriage. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    And it has been passed. :-D

    I’ll report back here in the morning if gays have “stolen” my wife out of our marriage bed and re-defined our straight marriage as a gay one by dropping off a gay dude in her place.

    Unless of course the sky falls… in which case, so long chaps, I’ve enjoyed our time on here :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    Well in days to come when they attempt to force churches to perform gay marriages, or flower sellers to sell flowers for gay weddings, or photographers to facilitate their immoral behaviour, I personally vow disobedience. The one thing that gay activists will never have is my approval, and that they cannot legislate.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda, it will make very little difference to anyone. That is one of the main reasons to allow it. Our default setting should always be more liberty, not less.

    In one sense I agree with that quite strongly, but like the ‘redefiners’ my issue is the principle of the matter.

    I loath the march of social progressives and the damage I see them doing at a community level even down to my own neighborhood. The more involved I become in community projects/leadership, the more I see how these people often stop projects dead in their tracks or simply make them impossible in the first place.

    The concern they often claim to have is more based in ‘life appeasement’ issues from their past than anything to do with genuine ‘well being’ of others, and in this regard they are the biggest challenge to overcome.

    I am much nicer in real life than on here, but I have to say, it doesn’t really do much good as far as making progress with these people.

    The attitude of many of our politicians is of extreme concern to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    Well in days to come when they attempt to force churches to perform gay marriages, or flower sellers to sell flowers for gay weddings, or photographers to facilitate their immoral behaviour, I personally vow disobedience.

    Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

    Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust

    ~ Dr Martin Luther King, letter from Arlington Jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Scott, what happens in New Zealand is determined by our law, not the law in Canada.

    Marriage law has to be changed before anyone can be compelled to officiate at a wedding or host a wedding. This change to marriage law is the first in 50 years – I don’t expect any change to it in our lifetime.

    Your expectation otherwise is completely wrong – and I think you realise that but are still stuck in your misrepresentation mode.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. mandk (718 comments) says:

    Right, what’s next? Polyandry and polygamy. Incestuous marriage. Persecution of conscientious objectors and dissenters.
    Desecration of places of worship. Compulsory education about sodomy for kids.
    And all in the name of love.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Fletch, the same argument is made by Islamists when opposing human rights and democracy.

    Islamists do not accept that a majority of the people have the right to deny consent to imposed sharia law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    That is one of the main reasons to allow it. Our default setting should always be more liberty, not less.

    That demonstrates your wooly thinking on this matter, this isn’t more liberty this is an extension of Government into relationships where it didn’t exist or need to exist.

    This isn’t more liberty it is less liberty and it is also an example of Government over reach, taking it upon itself to redefine venerable cultural institutions

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    mandk, what next is not argument against what happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    I am going to propose to Redbaiter :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    Andrei, so moral law restricting who can marry is liberty and easier terms for a civil marriage is a denial of liberty – are you channelling an Orwellian presence?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    Andrei (2,021) Says:
    April 17th, 2013 at 10:13 pm
    That is one of the main reasons to allow it. Our default setting should always be more liberty, not less.

    That demonstrates your wooly thinking on this matter, this isn’t more liberty this is an extension of Government into relationships where it didn’t exist or need to exist.

    If government extension did not exist into relationships, then why did a government law need to change to allow gay marriage ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. mandk (718 comments) says:

    RRM & Kea,
    John Donne nailed it 400+ years ago in Meditation XVII.
    “No man is an island …”
    Mock-marriage will affect you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Kimble (4,095 comments) says:

    You know who else opposes gay marriage?

    Promiscuous gays.

    Gee, religious objectors to gay marriage certainly do keep some strange bedfellows.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. mandk (718 comments) says:

    SPC
    That’s extremely naive. The proponents of civil unions promised us that they would not be the forerunners for same sex marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    In times past the Caesarian thumbs down meant releasing the killing beast for desecrating the bodies of liberals who opposed the imposed moral law of Rome).

    Later during the Inquisition it would have been a death sentence by burning on a cross – a taste of hell presumably.

    Go on vent release your displeasure by disapproving of the opinion of a liberal. You know what makes you feel more powerful acting as a mob to put others down one at a time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Kea (10,481 comments) says:

    mandk, so does a Butterfly flapping its wings.

    Don’t worry, I have some serious concerns about where things may go from here. But I am ok with gays getting married and that is all this is about… for now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. SPC (4,679 comments) says:

    mandk, no just common sense. Persecution of opponents is banned in legislation. Ignoring that fact makes your forecasting less than credible. And it is not an argument against what happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Mock-marriage will affect you.

    And yet you can’t say how.

    Other than vague generalisations about a generalised degradation of “morals” in society…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Actually, I take that back, I just soothed my 10 month old boy back to sleep and it’s clarified for me what the effects of this law are.

    My angelic little sleeping boy is highly unlikely to be gay when he grows up.
    But if he does, his country won’t discriminate against him and his partner. Only a few people like Fletch and mandk will do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Is it ever too late to score? I have a wife but thinking of trying a “husband”. If I like it can I keep him? Seems fair, one of each. No discrimination. Put the “eee” in e-quality. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Don’t worry, I have some serious concerns about where things may go from here. But I am ok with gays getting married and that is all this is about… for now.

    Kea, did you listen to the debate?

    The thing they talked about most was the social capital aspect that this change would give them, they mentioned suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, bullying, just about all the liberal memes out there.

    You seriously think this was just about gays getting married?

    The excitement of the possibilities were rolling off the tongues, Maryan street practically announced policy direction in her speech:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jtjDXx4-TOw#!

    This is just the start, mark my words.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    But if he does, his country won’t discriminate against him and his partner.

    So you see ‘your country’ as the state and not the people within it? I feel sorry for your kid.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    You’re a pretty small subset of the people in it Shunda ;-)

    Anyway I think this calls for a Queen playlist:

    We are the champions – http://youtu.be/xdCrZfTkG1c
    I want to break free – http://youtu.be/bRdo7WXTVoM
    I want it all – http://youtu.be/1pm4fQRl72k
    Another one bites the dust – http://youtu.be/rY0WxgSXdEE

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Chinarugby (80 comments) says:

    Kea – Loved the youtube video.

    Happy to have had Parliament pass the third reading this evening.

    NZ just got a little bit better :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    NZ just got a little bit fcked up.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. xy (130 comments) says:

    Oh shit, I just checked and my wife has turned into a man. YOU WERE ALL RIGHT.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Harriet (4,013 comments) says:

    You’ve just had the government remove the one name in the kiwi lexicon that describes a hetrosexual relationship: Marriage.

    Now you have nothing to describe hetrosexual relationships.

    National and Labour MP’s have supported gays in stealing YOUR identity!

    It’s as though hetrosexuals shouldn’t exist -but if they do- they shouldn’t say so!

    Well…..out yourselves…..as conservative party supporters!

    The bigger the party vote, the more policy that either National or Labour will have to shift position on to form government with conservatives.

    And besides, back bench National MP’s who voted against gay marriage, and are placed low down on the party list, WILL defect to the Conservatives.

    Otherwise, they won’t have a job!

    Let Key suck on that ! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Last night we witnessed the temporary trimuph of lust over love.
    This battle wasn’t lost last night it was lost years ago when an incredulous populace fell for the mainfest falsehood that people are born gay. This meant that the ridiculous notion that 2 persons of the same sex could marry, could be framed as a human rights issue. 200 years of Christian heritage was spat on last night, as the legislators of our nation pandered to a gallery full of persons who have no intention of entering into a monogamous committment, to desecrate a relationship that has provided the foundation of civilised society.
    But love will ultimately triumph over lust. So to those out there who feel captive in the gay life style you can change. “For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but have eternal life”( John 3 v16). The sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ, can take away your bad conscience and give you a power to live a life free of selfishness and free you from the tyranny of what can never provide lasting satisfaction.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Oh leave out, face it the church and religion are outdated bronze age relics, the rest of the world has moved on.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Harriet, that’s not completely true. The US Dept of Census once came up with “POSLQ” to describe “persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters”. They did this because traditional marriage was on the way out (this is in the late 70′s long before gay marriage was even imagined)- “plus ça change, plus la meme chose” as the French say.
    Why not push for a reintroduction of POSLQ? It can NEVER be claimed by same sex couples, and it reminds all people in a POSLQ relationship that they have obligations, even if they’re not married formally. Finally, it lends itself to poetry:
    “and my love will be forever true
    if you will be my POSLQ”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    What this bill has done is fracture the connection between common law marriage–a man taking a wife, an institution rooted in antiquity–and marriage as the legal entity, the piece of paper.

    The special relationship between men and women–mating and rearing any offspring–remains unaltered. But its name has been stolen and applied to homosexual relationships, when marriage has never permitted homosexual acts.

    This can only diminish marriage as an ideal for men and women. Already it’s seen as too hard. Easier to do what you like and the children can take whatever comes.

    I don’t blame homosexuals for this. They are a symptom, not the cause. But the irony is, in their quest for respectability, they have inextricably changed and possibly tarnished the very prize they have won.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    One of the best speeches on the marriage bill last night was from National MP Maurice Williamson. Here is the last part:

    I understand why people do not like what it is that others do. That is fine. We are all in that category.

    But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight guaranteed promise.

    The sun will still rise tomorrow.

    Your teenage daughter will still argue back to you as if she knows everything.

    Your mortgage will not grow.

    You will not have skin diseases or rashes, or toads in your bed.

    The world will just carry on.

    So do not make this into a big deal.

    This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.

    Finally, can I say that one of the messages I had was that this bill was the cause of our drought—this bill was the cause of our drought.

    Well, if any of you follow my Twitter account, you will see that in the Pakuranga electorate this morning it was pouring with rain. We had the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate.

    It has to be a sign. It has to be a sign. If you are a believer, it is certainly a sign.

    Can I finish—for all those who are concerned about this—with a quote from the Bible. It is Deuteronomy. I thought Deuteronomy was a cat out of the musical Cats, but never mind. The quote is Deuteronomy 1:29: “Be ye not afraid.”

    Full transcript of Williamson’s speech and link to video: Maurice Williamson on Marriage Bill – “be ye not afraid”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    I must admit my wife and I didn’t really know what to do last night, now that our marriage has been “re-defined”…

    Does this mean we are gay??

    Or are we just not “married” any more?

    Who stole my Marriage? Where have they taken it? What are they doing with it?

    Is anyone else feeling as confused as I am? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    I woke up this morning and my wife wasn’t in my bed, just as was predicted.

    True story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Manolo (12,644 comments) says:

    P.G., are you getting married any time soon? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @RRM. It’s not your marriage that has been redefined, it’s the institution of marriage. Don’t worry. Tell your wife it’s compulsory to take it up the arse now, she’ll give you the message in a way you can understand… :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    Manolo – no, I’m already married. This bill doesn’t affect me directly, but it gives others an opportunity and choice that I took for granted as something I could just do.

    And it is a signal of a growing acceptance in society of people who are a bit different to the majority, and that they deserve equal legal status. I’m proud to have played a (very) small part in this change for the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    I’m confused about one thing in this debate.

    For some time, the supporters of this bill have been telling us that it’s really not a big deal, it won’t make any difference to the majority of people, and it’s not that big a change, etc.

    So why was there such passion, such interest, such excitement last night from the bill’s supporters, over a “relatively minor change”?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    One small step for equality, one giant step for homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Pete George (17,172) Says: April 18th, 2013 at 7:29 am
    And it is a signal of a growing acceptance in society of people who are a bit different to the majority…

    Time to remove the stigma and inequality faced by colour blind men. Not permitted to drive trains or get commercial pilot’s licence. Discrimination. Inequality. Only a bit different.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. KiwiGreg (3,129 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Colour blindness is a lifestyle choice, if we let the colour blind fly planes it’s a slippery slope before the entirely blind want to, then it’ll be dead people or even women. The Bible is clear that colour blindness is a sin, it’s a long standing tradition that colour blind cant fly and if they were allowed to it would ruin my flying experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    It’s pretty easy to burn stuff- and make it taste like crap.

    They could make stuff taste like shit and the would probably get recommended.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Now now, Chuck, I know you’re sore this morning ;) but don’t rub it in :)

    It will make no difference for several generations, and by then the novelty will have worn off… :) :) :)

    In other words, just grin and bare it.

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

    What a glorious country – I am proud to be an New Zealander.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    graham – this bill won’t change my life directly, but it has changed my understanding of minority rights.

    And it was quite moving hearing MPs last night with personal stories that show how much they have been affected by it. Try watching Kevin Hague’s speech:

    Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – Third Reading – Part 8

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Pete. You could have just told them to “harden up”. But I see you take this seriously.

    Do you really think this will alter homosexuals’ lifestyle?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    Dennis, perhaps you could learn to have compassion for people who have been prejudiced against, abused, bullied and ostracised throughout much of their lives, and have just gained some recognition that they are equal human beings.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    It’s been great to be part of a team working for this change.

    I used to scoff a lefties who claimed that you were doing your political master’s bidding here at KB.

    No more.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    perhaps you could learn to have compassion for people who have been prejudiced against, abused, bullied and ostracised

    Yeah, It’s tough for Christians these days

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. nasska (9,579 comments) says:

    Harden up krazykiwi! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Pete. I do. But this has pissed me off. I feel cheated, and I’m not the only one. Why did they have to take the word marriage? Homosexual relationships are not marriage.

    Pete, we do not choose to be born the way we are, or even born at all. If we could choose, we would all be tall, dark, handsome and clever. We must each play the cards we were dealt. I absolutely support civil union/partnership. I think it’s good for society that people live in stable relationships. Of course it’s good for them too.

    I am not even opposed to homosexuals caring for children, in certain circumstances and subject to the usual safeguards, but I am opposed to surrogacy, homosexuals bringing into the world children who will have no mother in their lives. It’s a cruel trick. And it’s happening right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    KK nether mind after 2000 years of persecution of atheist I am sure we will forgive you Jesus zombie worshipers in say a couple of century’s after we have burnt, tortured, disemboweled and sodomized enough christstains

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Incidentally, I’m a fervent atheist. I think religiosity is madness. But then this push to call civil union “marriage” has all the hallmarks of religion to. The claims and methods are similar, different god.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    I am not even opposed to homosexuals caring for children, in certain circumstances and subject to the usual safeguards, but I am opposed to surrogacy, homosexuals bringing into the world children who will have no mother in their lives. It’s a cruel trick. And it’s happening right now.

    Still focused on your anal sex thing eh bigot
    how many times has it been pointed out to you that woman can be homosexual twenty plus yet still you give your bigotry away by claiming that homosexual means men fucking men up the arse

    why dont you come out of the closet and give into those desires you so fervently deny

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Griff. Two blokes discussing the end of the world.

    David: What would you do?

    Roger: Shag everything that moves. And you?

    David: Keep very still…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Griff (4,582) Says: April 18th, 2013 at 8:25 am
    I am not even opposed to homosexuals caring for children, in certain circumstances and subject to the usual safeguards, but I am opposed to surrogacy, homosexuals bringing into the world children who will have no mother in their lives. It’s a cruel trick. And it’s happening right now.

    Still focused on your anal sex thing eh bigot
    how many times has it been pointed out to you that woman can be homosexual twenty plus yet still you give your bigotry away by claiming that homosexual means men fucking men up the arse

    why dont you come out of the closet and give into those desires you so fervently deny

    Struggling to see the connection. Is it a lawful connection? Logically, I mean. I’m sorry, Griff, I shouldn’t tease you. I do hope marriage improves your health. Bottoms up! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    Pete, you have highlighted some of the dishonesty that has come from supporters of this bill. On the one hand they were claiming that this wasn’t a big deal, no major change, just a small minor detail really – but on the other hand you talk about MPs telling personal stories that show how much they have been affected by it, how moving it was, and we saw the huge influx of people keen to see the bill being passed. You yourself have referred to this as a historic occasion.

    So which is it – a small minor change, or a big change, a giant leap for homosexuals, and a historic occasion? Can’t have it both ways.

    Don’t get me wrong. I understand that for many homosexuals, this bill is simply about them getting married. Nothing more, nothing less. And I understand that they are quite genuine in their love and commitment for each other. I have said before, I do not stand in judgement on homosexuals. My personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong (for a variety of reasons, not just from a Christian perspective), but to me it is similar to a number of other issues which I believe to be wrong or unwise, such as pre-marital sex (which again I believe to be not only wrong from a Christian perspective, but also harmful to society in a number of ways, and I’ve explained my reasonings on this previously). But I don’t think it’s for me to judge. I know there are many Christians who firmly believe that homosexuality is NOT a sin. At the end of the day, I believe it is up to God to judge each person, not me. That doesn’t stop me speaking out and saying “I believe this is wrong” though.

    But there is more to this than just marriage equality, and anybody who doesn’t recognise that is simply naive. One example is gay adoption, and many people who support gay marriage have expressed reservations around gay adoption. Even David Farrar, while supporting gay adoption, has stated that “I do believe that it is important for a child to have both a male and female adult in their lives, and the ideal circumstance is that the prospective parents are a male and female married (or civilly united) to each other.”

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/gay_adoption-2.html

    Gay adoption slipped in under the radar, but for at least one gay couple this is the biggest news from last night.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/8564593/Vote-allows-gay-couple-to-adopt-baby

    Legalising same-sex marriage and adoption is not where this bill ends. It opens the door to further calls for action in years to come, with the catchcry of “We’ve legalised gay marriage, we’ve legalised gay marriage, let’s show the world how progressive we are, how open-minded we are, what champions of minority rights we are, by legalising xyz. After all the sky didn’t fall in when we legalised gay marriage, so what will be the harm with legalising xyz?” And people will nod their heads and smile, congratulating themselves on how tolerant and open-minded New Zealand is.

    For me personally, gay marriage is not a world-ending chest-beating dressing-in-sackcloth-and-ashes here-comes-Armageddon event. As I have said, I consider it wrong, but there you go. I am less happy with gay adoption. As David Farrar himself says, I also believe that it is important – and I would go further and say it is vital – for a child to have both a male and female adult in their lives, and the ideal circumstance is that the parents are a man and a woman married to each other and who have made a life-long commitment to each other.

    But what worries me more is what this latest action will lead to. And if you honestly believe that it ends here, and this bill has not just set a precedent and a reference point for future “let’s continue to be open-minded and caring and tolerant and legalise xyz” actions, then you’re hopelessly naive.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    One of the best speeches on the marriage bill last night was from National MP Maurice Williamson.

    Maurice Williamson’s speech sneered at and denigrated many of his constituents who oppose same-sex marriage as well as the citizens of the New Zealand public he serves without so much as a refutable premise. There were reasonable proponents of same-sex marriage in the House yesterday but he really wasn’t one of them. I thought his comments were more worthy of a Youtube page than a parliamentary debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Manolo (12,644 comments) says:

    Will GayKiwiBlog throw a party, a big bash, to celebrate this momentous, time-defining, critical-point-in-time, historical occasion?

    It’s the least our host, the staunch supporter DPF, can do.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    The final speeches reveal just how much we have been ‘had’ by our supposed elected representatives.

    It turns out it was never about marriage, it was about trying (in vain) to stop suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, bullying and every other down trodden meme you can dream up.

    The intention was to gain the social capital necessary for a whole new wave of of left wing propaganda to fill our schools and work paces to make sure the queer community are held in the spot light permanently. Maryan Street practically announced a policy direction.

    If they think this will help anyone, the are profoundly deluded. What they don’t seem to understand is that a much nastier bunch of people are out there than the people that have opposed this bill so far. As soon as they try to force ‘equality’ on the wider population, the reaction will begin, which will inevitably increase prejudice against what will be perceived as “the teachers pets”.

    You trashed my marriage for nothing, but I guess who am I as a straight middle class heterosexual to object? the fact that I am also white just makes me an extra shitty piece of shit to them.

    Social engineering at it’s purist, they aren’t even denying it anymore, they are speaking about it in parliament and the general populace is too damned disengaged to grasp it.
    They achieved this change in a disgraceful manner.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    What will you and your spouse do now that your marriage has been trashed, Shunda?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    What will you and your spouse do now that your marriage has been trashed, Shunda?

    Actually Ryan, I am currently investigating ways that traditional heterosexual marriage could be recognized through NZ law independently from the new ‘state marriage’.

    Wouldn’t that just expose the true bigotry of our progressive rulers.

    Either way, I am going to become more politically active, the debate in the house last night was appalling, we need a grass roots movement to combat these arrogant bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    I also vow to never vote the national party again, the Maurice Williamson speech was disgraceful and I simply can not vote for a party that holds up such a disgusting politician.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “Either way, I am going to become more politically active, the debate in the house last night was appalling.”

    Shunda, would you like to drop me a email.

    chuckbirdnz@gmail.com

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    I also vow to never vote the national party again, the Maurice Williamson speech was disgraceful and I simply can not vote for a party that holds up such a disgusting politician.

    I couldn’t agree more. My vote will go to the Conservative Party and I have no intention of ever voting National until Maurice Williamson is removed as an MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Manolo (12,644 comments) says:

    I also vow to never vote the national party again..

    Good to see the left-wing Labour lite losing another vote!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. SGA (554 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda at 9:55 am

    What will you and your spouse do now that your marriage has been trashed, Shunda?

    Actually Ryan, I am currently investigating ways that traditional heterosexual marriage could be recognized through NZ law independently from the new ‘state marriage’.

    Then they yelled at the ones who had stars at the start,
    “We’re still the best Sneetches and they are the worst.
    But now, how in the world will we know”, they all frowned,
    “If which kind is what, or the other way round?”

    Then up came McBean with a very sly wink.
    And he said, “Things are not quite as bad as you think.

    So you don’t know who’s who. That is perfectly true.
    But come with me, friends. Do you know what I’ll do?
    I’ll make you, again, the best Sneetches on the beaches.
    And all it will cost you is ten dollars eaches.”

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

    @Shunda Barunda

    “You trashed my marriage for nothing, but I guess who am I as a straight middle class heterosexual to object?”

    ——————-

    Bawhahahahaha.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Metaphorically speaking, the National Party needs to be fumigated. All of the Jim-Jones-pseudo-liberals who unwittingly march in lock step with the radical left need to be kicked to touch. These are the same politically naive fools who will clamour over themselves to support other egregious legislation coming down the pike. Street’s “death with dignity” bill for example.

    National will most likely lose the next election anyway. They took an utterly catatonic stance on the MMP referendum. MMP is a corrupt electoral system designed to lock down a permanent left-wing political landscape in this country, and they just sat there and let it happen. Twice.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. LiberalismIsASin (288 comments) says:

    Sad day for New Zealand. But here is the thing, I think this could be the tipping point that causes the pendulum to start swinging back towards morality. Because we all know this will not stop here. Next will be hate speech laws where disagreeing with homosexuality will be a hate crime. And watch for the first test case where a two deviants of the same sex will demand “marriage” by a religious institution – more than likely a catholic church if only because it is a visible expression of the church and has been stridently opposed to this evil from the start. Those who oppose this fascism – for that is what it is – must be seen to not only be defeated but also humiliated. This ain’t over, not by a long shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    All the conservatives are going to vote for kolon Kwaig .
    Are you sure you want to vote that way remember Capill.

    Christstain Heritage.
    It described its three key policies as “Affirming Marriage, Building Families and Celebrating Life”, i.e. opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion and support of law-and-order.
    And forgot to mention kiddys as its leaders sexual preference :lol:
    What new perversion is kolon bringing to politics in New Zealand ?
    One thing I know is it will not be right wing enough for you all seems Jesus the zombie was really a socialist .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    Why it was a giant step for some:

    As a homosexual, it’s a giant step. Why? Because now I, and my relationship with my partner, is equal in the eyes of the law. Fully equal.

    It’s a giant step because my transgendered student and friend can now change her birth certificate to female without having to annul her marriage certificate.

    It’s a giant step for all those people who want the legal power to adopt and have their relationships with their partner’s children recognised legally.

    While I wasn’t fussed if it happened last night (as I know New Zealand would have eventually come around), the issue itself was a big deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Manolo (12,644 comments) says:

    No wonder the whorish Dunne voted in favour!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Rhodie (28 comments) says:

    David, at every sitting of Parliment, the Speaker prays to the Almighty “That we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country TO THE GLORY OF THY HOLY NAME, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace and tranquility of New Zealand THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, AMEN.” (emphasis mine). Once again, thanks to these poofters ramroading their agender with equally perverted M.P.’s, morality in this country has taken another sickening decline.

    77 Politicians Commit Act of ‘Cultural Vandalism’

    Protect Marriage Media Release 17 April 2013

    In response to the ‘shot-gun’ passing of the bill redefining marriage this evening, National Director of Family First NZ and co-ordinator of the Protect Marriage campaign, Bob McCoskrie, says:

    “In passing the ‘shot-gun’ same-sex marriage bill, Parliament has chosen to reject the obvious cultural and natural character of marriage and the subsequent creation and care of children, and made marriage just about partnership. In ramming through this bill in a shameful way without due consideration, and with no clear public mandate, politicians have committed an arrogant act of cultural vandalism.”

    “The equality cause is not advanced by destroying institutions. Equality should respect difference, not destroy it. There was no discrimination in the law as it stood.”

    “Ironically, marriage now has become meaningless. We will now be using the word to describe something else – not commonly or traditionally conceived, but conceived by politics and political correctness.”

    “With the accompanying consequence of changes to adoption laws, politicians have also weakened the rights of the child in favour of pandering to the demands of adults. A child has a right to a mum and a dad. We should not set out in public policy to deny a child that basic right. This is not a sexuality issue. This is a gender issue. The gender of the parents does matter to a child.”

    “We also note that Prime Minister John Key has effectively split the National party down the middle by strongly promoting this bill, and the party now has a crisis of unity as it gets confused over its identity and values. Traditional National supporters may be looking for a new ‘home’.”

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.