Another day, another bullshit Family First/Curia poll

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 pm, March 23rd, 2013 - 187 comments
Categories: child welfare, dpf, families, gay rights, making shit up - Tags:

… which I have no doubt will be blithely reported by our mainstream media as though it’s meaningful.

The actual question asked:

“Should families where there is both a mum and a dad have priority for the adoption of babies and children?”

The headline which purports to summarise the results:

Mum And Dad Matter For Adopted Kids – Poll

The problems:

The question does not specify priority over whom. 

Now, despite the frequent “echo chamber” bingos of rightwing trolldom, I don’t actually think that everyone does – or should – think exactly the same as me.  I’m well aware that there are a lot of Ordinary New Zealanders out there who do not analyse every political statement they hear, who do not automatically ask “what about same-sex parents?” when someone talks about families.

And that’s why I feel comfortable suggesting that when a lot of Ordinary New Zealanders hear the question “should families with a mum and dad get priority?” they do not think “yes, hetero parenting setups are better than same-sex parenting setups”.  They probably think “kids are better off with two parents than one.”

(This is still a little problematic to me in social-construct-y terms, but hey, families with two parents are almost certainly in better positions to raise children because our society shits on single parents from orbit, so I’ll let that one go.)

The point is: unless you give people full information – by asking, say, “should a heterosexual couple be given priority over a homosexual couple?” – then you simply cannot make the assumption that that’s what people’s answers mean.  Especially when other polls indicate that New Zealanders are not, in fact, majority opposed to same-sex adoption.

Unless you’re Family First and you lie a lot.

The press release describes the poll as independent.

And I describe myself as the Queen of Sheba.

Marriage equality isn’t about gay men stealing babies.

The changes to our marriage legislation, which will give same-sex couples the same rights to adopt children as hetero couples, has a lot less to do with “stranger” adoption and a lot more to do with stories like this one.

Stranger adoption is pretty rare in New Zealand, for a start.

And under the current law, if I had my Own Biological Children and then had a civil union with a woman, who loved and cared for my kids for a decade, she would have no right to adopt my kids.  Even though they were pretty much her kids, and even though if I’d married a dude instead it wouldn’t be a problem.

Our current law doesn’t just discriminate against committed loving same-sex couples adopting a “stranger” baby, creating a slightly ridiculous situation where an individual can adopt, then raise a child in a same-sex parenting household, with the other parent not being legally treated as a parent.  

It also discriminates against same-sex couples who are, right now, raising kids together – often with one partner the biological partner and the other left to piss in the wind, legally speaking.

As the CYF website notes, the decision for who to adopt a child to (for individuals or hetero couples) comes down to the birth parent – and advises them “You can take your time to look carefully for a family that feels like the best fit for your child”.  No one is forcing people to give their children to same-sex couples.  They’re just not even being presented with the option.

It’s a bit fucking silly, when you think about it like that.

Polyamory, flatmates, and widows/widowers.

Not every family is based on a simple two-parents-who-fuck model.  Once again, Family First, a group which takes upon itself the mantle of Protector Of All New Zealand Families, erases the existence of any number of family setups where children are, right now, being raised happy and healthy and well-rounded.

Family First is so dedicated to crapping on same-sex couples that they will even shit on people who are having to raise kids alone when their monogamous hetero partner has died:

A child has a right to a mum and a dad. Death, divorce and disaster may not always deliver that, but we should not set out in public policy to deny a child that basic right

Aren’t you glad, solo parents, that Family First is able to acknowledge that death has “delivered” a sub-optimal family situation for your child?  That even when they do acknowledge that sometimes shit happens, they still want to emphasise that your child is disadvantaged, their rights are being breached, and you are incapable of raising them properly on your own.

And to the communities and extended families and friends and support networks who are pitching in to help those solo parents?  Fuck you.  You didn’t provide the jizz or the incubation facilities so you ain’t shit.

That’s Family First for you: obsessed with heterosexual sex, and willing to perform any linguistic gymnastics necessary to convince you that they’re just doing it for the kids.

187 comments on “Another day, another bullshit Family First/Curia poll ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dr Terry 1
    23 March 2013 at 7:01 pm

    “Family First” (ha ha) is not gracious enough to admit that it has badly lost its hateful battle. Poor losers indeed. It is just great, at long last, to see this lot as losers, and to congratulate ouselves (the enlightened) as winners! There is nothing over which we need defend ourselves. We can happily take the offensive now. The Nation has spoken (with the bill’s third reading virtually a formality). Let’s forget the horrors of self-proclaimed “family first” and substitute for it “Love first”.

  2. Andrew Geddis 2
    23 March 2013 at 7:34 pm

    If you’ll forgive the link-whoring, I’ve posted on the issue of adoption in a post-same sex marriage world here: http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/of-marriage-same-sex-couples-and-adoption

    Pretty much, yes – Family First’s position is fucked.

    [lprent: It isn’t link-whoring in my view if :-

    1. It is relevant to the context of the post and/or the conversation..
    2. There is enough information about why readers should click on the link..
    3. And we welcome and encourage off-topic links in Open Mike that follow (2) anyway..

    ]

    • Harriet 2.1
      23 March 2013 at 8:54 pm

      Adopted children, and children who are the product of a community project[designed by 3 people for a gay Marriage’] will suffer the loss of one or both parents all through their entire childhood. Designed ‘suffering’ is not parenting -but more importantly- it is not a childhood!

      Children who have ‘lost’ a parent or two, should be placed into the very next best thing – a family relationship that is a reflection of what is best practice. Best practice is what is seen by a child as an example of how life should be: How the responsabilities of reproduction are fulfilled by best practise. Seen daily, best practise responsabilities become 2nd nature.Every child wants a happy childhood, and in turn, would want to create that enviroment when reproduction occures. It’s called love. Confusion about what is best practise leads to insecurity, which leads onto their own children being insecure. That is not best practise parenting.

      Child ‘modelling’ doesn’t call for two gay blokes or two lesbians as parents – and wait for it – neither does it call for two straight blokes or two straight females as parents either. If ‘straights’ can see that they are a 4th or 5th order parenting model to a ‘mum and dad arrangement ‘ then why can’t gays? Do gays really look at childhood differently than straights do? Hardly, if they care that is!

      It may seem funny in a sit-com for two gay blokes to be out cloths shopping for a 12yld girl, but where her menstral privacy, puberty, sexuality, self assuredness, and other needs that are -required-for her to develop through life as a ‘woman’ and as a ‘complete person’, are better seen, learned, developed, and taught, in a hetrosexual relationship. Boys even more so, as at best, they support the ‘mother’ of their children, an important role in society that teaches their sons and daughters want support is required as a parent.

      Under no circumstances should a child or adolescent see daily – life in an abstract form. 😎

      • Andrew Geddis 2.1.1
        23 March 2013 at 9:17 pm

        Harriet,

        That is some awesome theory built on the back of some cast-iron common sense thinking that the world must be this way because it just must be. Now – is there any evidence that it is true?

        Furthermore, let’s say you believe everything you say to be true. Two questions:

        (1) What are you going to do about it? Seriously … what follows from your claims? In particular, are you going to ban same sex couples from having children? How?

        (2) What has anything you have written got to do with same sex adoption? Even if it is less-than-optimal for a child to be raised by a same sex couple (something I reject, but anyway), why does that mean that the law shouldn’t enable both of the couple to have the legal rights (and responsibilities) of “parents”?

        • Harriet 2.1.1.1
          23 March 2013 at 9:57 pm

          Best practise childhood modelling is firstly looked at through the eyes of children.

          Secondly, from there, it is then looked at from the position of adulthood.

          Thirdly, prospective adoptive parents are then also looked at from the position of adulthood.

          Like I said:

          “….Adopted children, and children who are the product of a community project[designed by 3 people for a gay Marriage’] will suffer the loss of one or both parents all through their entire childhood. Designed ‘suffering’ is not parenting -but more importantly- it is not a childhood!…”

          “….Under no circumstances should a child or adolescent see daily – life in an abstract form….”

          Gay ‘parenting’ is far removed from an example of ‘natural life arrangements’.
          What is an adoptive child in a gay arrangement to be told when asking:

          “But billy has a mum and a dad and he’s adopted too?” – What? …’society is homophobic’?

          • AsleepWhileWalking 2.1.1.1.1
            24 March 2013 at 10:01 am

            Best practise childhood modelling is firstly looked at through the eyes of children.
            Spoken like a true adult

          • Frank Macskasy 2.1.1.1.2
            24 March 2013 at 8:13 pm

            “Best practise childhood modelling” – good lord, Harriet, you make it sound so… robotic. The Borg would be proud to assimilate you (or vice versa).

            Can’t you just say, family?

            And the best things that families can offer for children are love, attention, set boundaries, security, nutritious food; good healthcare; warm, dry homes; clean clothing; a positive learning environment, respect, and many other things along those lines.

            Somehow, I can’t see the genetic make-up (XX or XY) being really all that impoprtant for kids. It adults like you and Family First (a mis-nomer if I ever head one) that are fixated on whether parents have willies or vages.

            Amazing isn’t it… a century ago, inter-racial marriages were frowned upon by folk like you. Probably someone said that cross-racial breeding was not “Best practise childhood modelling”.

            But we learnt that was crap; moved on; and hey, civilisation has not (yet) collapsed into an apocalyptic heap of rubble. Talking apes do not rule the planet.

            Just like it didn’t collapse after the 1986 Homosexual Law Reform Act.

            And it won’t fall apart because gay blokes and lesbian blokettes can walk down the aisle; get married; raise kids; pay a mortgage; watch crap on TV; squabble over whose turn it is to walk the goat; whatever.

            That’s life, Harriet, and it ain’t much different to any other family.

            Get over yourself and your prejudices. Because I’ll tell you something for free; marriage equality will pass. Adoption equality will pass. And in 25 years, people will look back on 2013 and wonder what the f**k the fuss was all about.

            And civilisation will still be here. (Though sea levels might have risen a wee bit – but you can’t blame that on gays and lesbians getting married. No, really, you can’t.)

            • Anne 2.1.1.1.2.1
              24 March 2013 at 8:21 pm

              And civilisation will still be here. (Though sea levels might have risen a wee bit – but you can’t blame that on gays and lesbians getting married. No, really, you can’t.)

              Wanna bet?

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2
        23 March 2013 at 10:46 pm

        If the children are raised in an open and caring society then all that BS you just spouted has no meaning whatsoever. The child will be cared for, will be secure and will see normal adult relations including gay, straight, bi, trans (yes, these are all normal). Their self-esteem and self-assurance will be assured as they will have many role models to observe rather than just two.

        The fractioning of society into families by the church has caused massive amounts of damage. The children aren’t seeing normal human relations due to being held behind walls in the nuclear family.

        Under no circumstances should a child or adolescent see daily – life in an abstract form.

        And yet that is what your prescription gives them.

        To be clear, it’s idiots like you and Family First that are actually causing the damage that you say will result if we don’t do as you say and it’s being caused because people are doing what you say.

        • Colonial Weka 2.1.2.1
          23 March 2013 at 10:54 pm

          Well said.

        • Harriet 2.1.2.2
          23 March 2013 at 11:49 pm

          “….If the children are raised in an open and caring society then all that BS you just spouted has no meaning whatsoever. The child will be cared for, will be secure and will see normal adult relations including gay, straight, bi, trans (yes, these are all normal). Their self-esteem and self-assurance will be assured as they will have many role models to observe rather than just two….”

          What rubbish.

          Human life is the decision of a male and a female – not society in general. The state supports the role of parents as guardians of those children that they create. In an ‘open and caring society’ humans are allowed to place ‘values’ on objects AND relationships, people too. We value people differently all the time – pay rates and qualifications are a simple recognition of that ! Sexuality is no differant. If you value everything the same – you then infact value nothing!

          No one places much value on gay, bi, trans relationships as they are more problematic than hetrosexual relationships in that they don’t follow the ‘natural order of things’.
          Suicide and drug addiction support that view. San Fransisco is the most ‘gay friendly’ place on earth, yet the suicide rates in San Francisco are the very same as other comparable cities: NY London Toronto Paris Sydney Melbourne Auckland Wellington.
          Parents are allowed to care for the welfare of their children, infact, they are expected by the State to do so. Therefor, telling children that ‘standing at the top of the cliff is dangerous’ is responsable parenting – not homophobic behaviour!

          And besides, no one has a problem with ‘being hetrosexual’ and goes out and kills themselves, they may however, have a problem because they ‘think they MAY BE gay or whatever’.

          Lots of teenage mums go to State funded parenting classes – do you seriously think that they are the most responsable parents in NZ ? Neither however are all mums and dads that are born into healthy hetro relationships, but they get by fairly well having lived that experiance naturally- daily!

          • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.2.1
            23 March 2013 at 11:53 pm

            The world has moved on from your Victorian Age.

            You have prepared well to be the ideological minority.

            No one places much value on gay, bi, trans relationships as they are more problematic than hetrosexual relationships in that they don’t follow the ‘natural order of things’.

            The substantial and bipartisan view of the NZ House of Representatives seems to disagree with you.

          • millsy 2.1.2.2.2
            23 March 2013 at 11:54 pm

            And what is your answer, string up gays with piano wire?

            And what about the people who are miserable in 2 parent families, hard luck.

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.2.2.1
              24 March 2013 at 12:00 am

              Make them conform to the Disney fairytale

              • millsy …
                24 March 2013 at 12:13 am

                ..at gun point, and throw them in camps if they dont.

                Louisa Wall is right. Those who oppose SSM want homosexuality recriminalised and for gays to be strung up with piano wire. The jackbooted thugs of Christian conservatisim want to crush happiness and enjoyment yet again.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.2.3
            24 March 2013 at 12:26 am

            Human life is the decision of a male and a female – not society in general.

            Wrong again – it is the result of our collective decisions.

            If you value everything the same – you then infact value nothing!

            Bollocks. It’s valuing difference rather than forcing everyone to be the same.

            No one places much value on gay, bi, trans relationships as they are more problematic than hetrosexual relationships in that they don’t follow the ‘natural order of things’.

            Wrong, gay, bi, trans relationships have been shown to be more stable and loving than hetero. And, as I said, they’re just as natural as hetero relationships.

            Suicide and drug addiction support that view. San Fransisco is the most ‘gay friendly’ place on earth, yet the suicide rates in San Francisco are the very same as other comparable cities: NY London Toronto Paris Sydney Melbourne Auckland Wellington.

            That is a completely meaningless sentence. It says nothing at all although it tries to imply quite a bit.

            Parents are allowed to care for the welfare of their children, infact, they are expected by the State to do so. Therefor, telling children that ‘standing at the top of the cliff is dangerous’ is responsable parenting – not homophobic behaviour!

            The beginning of the sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the end of the sentence.

            And besides, no one has a problem with ‘being hetrosexual’ and goes out and kills themselves, they may however, have a problem because they ‘think they MAY BE gay or whatever’.

            If people are killing themselves because they’re gay it’s probably due to arseholes abusing them rather than giving them the love and nurturing that they need. Note, hetero children do the same thing when they’re abused.

            Lots of teenage mums go to State funded parenting classes – do you seriously think that they are the most responsable parents in NZ ? Neither however are all mums and dads that are born into healthy hetro relationships, but they get by fairly well having lived that experiance naturally- daily!

            You should probably take up remedial English as your writing is pathetic. That paragraph is so garbelled as to be almost nonsensical.

            Anyway, the abuse by parents in this country proves you wrong, the parents aren’t doing too well and probably should also go to those state funded parenting classes.

          • AsleepWhileWalking 2.1.2.2.5
            24 March 2013 at 10:05 am

            Ahh…so now male and females get to decide human life! Not using the “will of God” argument today.

            Harriet no doubt has more “Fundie Facts” for the rest of us to abide by

          • Frank Macskasy 2.1.2.2.6
            24 March 2013 at 8:17 pm

            “And besides, no one has a problem with ‘being hetrosexual’ and goes out and kills themselves, they may however, have a problem because they ‘think they MAY BE gay or whatever’. ”

            Untrue.

            If someone gay/lesbian/etc “has a problem”, it’s usually the stresses and pressures placed upon them by certain bigotted individuals or organisations in our society who force them over a cliff.

      • QoT 2.1.3
        24 March 2013 at 9:20 am

        Children who have ‘lost’ a parent or two, should be placed into the very next best thing

        Harriet … I think you literally just advocated for the forced adoption of children in solo parent households.

        As others have pointed out, you clearly have absolutely no idea of the diversity and variety of families and households in New Zealand society.

        Both of these things, in my opinion, makes you utterly unqualified to comment on this matter, as you’re a wilfully ignorant bigot.

        • The Al1en 2.1.3.1
          24 March 2013 at 9:25 am

          ” utterly unqualified to comment on this matter, as you’re a wilfully ignorant bigot.”

          Hands up who guessed as much after Harriet’s first contribution.

  3. Anne 3
    23 March 2013 at 7:48 pm

    Compare that photograph of Bob McCoskrie and one of neanderthal man and there really is not a lot of difference. Therein lies the problem. Family First are today’s equivalent of the Flat Earth Society of yesteryear. There is no point in trying to make them see reason because their brains are still wired in a past epoch when ignorance, bigotry and sheer stupidity was the accepted wisdom of the day.

    • Anne 3.1
      23 March 2013 at 7:53 pm

      Neanderthal man

      Umm, in response to my own comment There is no point etc… :

      Not sure much has actually changed.

      • kiwi_prometheus 3.1.1
        23 March 2013 at 8:42 pm

        Anne, could you put a picture up of yourself – it will probably have to be in “panoramic” view?

        • Murray Olsen 3.1.1.1
          23 March 2013 at 9:09 pm

          You’re bloody sick. What makes you think Anne is fat? Is it because none of the nubile porn nymphs you fantasise about ever disagree with you on anything? Why don’t you put up your picture?

          • kiwi_prometheus 3.1.1.1.1
            23 March 2013 at 9:25 pm

            Anne -> “Compare that photograph of Bob McCoskrie and one of neanderthal man and there really is not a lot of difference. ”

            What a laugh, you lot dish it out then burst into tears when its dished back, Olsen, LOL

            • Anne 3.1.1.1.1.1
              23 March 2013 at 9:30 pm

              Yeah, well I was being honest. There isn’t a lot of difference is there…. Sure, McCoskrie isn’t hairy and he looks cleaner but pop a scruffy beard on him and rub some dirt on his face and you wouldn’t know the difference. 🙂

              • Tigger …
                23 March 2013 at 11:15 pm

                Actually McCoskrie is very hairy in real life. The Neanderthal comparison stands!

              • The Al1en …
                23 March 2013 at 11:26 pm

                “pop a scruffy beard on him and rub some dirt on his face”

                I’m sure there are plenty less tolerant than I who would rather rub his face in the dirt. 🙂

            • Murray Olsen 3.1.1.1.1.2
              23 March 2013 at 11:53 pm

              What makes you imagine tears? You’re not dishing anything back, just exposing your prejudices a bit more. You really are a very sad relic of long gone but not lamented times.

      • Harriet 3.1.2
        23 March 2013 at 9:32 pm

        “….There is no point in trying to make them[Family First hetros] see reason because their brains are still wired in a past epoch when ignorance, bigotry and sheer stupidity was the accepted wisdom of the day…”

        WTF?

        Everyone – scientists included – see ‘reason’ and ‘form’ in nature.

        It’s funny how your previous sentance was about the ‘flat earth society’ – a comment usually reserved for ‘religionists’ of some sort or another!

        Tell me Anne, what follows on from 20 lesbians and 20 gay men being the last people on earth?

        Here, I’ll start you off…..firstly, they would ‘change’ to save mankind!

        Secondly, les1 and gay1 would be seen by the rest as a ‘couple’, so as les1 doesn’t sleep with gay2 leading to their offsprings being incestuous. Gay1 would support les1, and their offspring would see a living example of humans sharing the responsabilities of reproduction.[house mothers shouldn’t be confined]

        Thirdly, the name currently given to this millenia old responsability to the human species is called …………..flat earthness? ignorance? bigotry? stupidity? Marriage?

        • Andrew Geddis 3.1.2.1
          23 March 2013 at 9:42 pm

          Tell me Anne, what follows on from 20 lesbians and 20 gay men being the last people on earth?

          I’ll tell you what follows on. A fabulous party, followed by scenes that it’s best you don’t let sully your obviously quite sheltered mind.

          As for “firstly, they would ‘change’ to save mankind!”, I assume the virtual end of the human race has not resulted in the destruction of all turkey basters?

        • Pascal's bookie 3.1.2.2
          23 March 2013 at 9:46 pm

          Well done, you just proved that marriage is an institution that is defined by a society to serve it’s current needs.

        • gorj 3.1.2.3
          23 March 2013 at 9:48 pm

          “Here, I’ll start you off…..firstly, they would ‘change’ to save mankind!”

          Are you seriously saying that being gay is a choice? Flat earther seems appropriate.

          • Populuxe1 3.1.2.3.1
            23 March 2013 at 9:53 pm

            I think you’ll find that gayness isn’t always as inflexible as that, any more than most heterosexuals have never enteratined the possiblility of some same-sex fooling around – hence the Kinsey Scale. After a bottle of vodka, anything is possible.

        • Colonial Weka 3.1.2.4
          23 March 2013 at 9:51 pm

          “Tell me Anne, what follows on from 20 lesbians and 20 gay men being the last people on earth?”

          The end of global warming, and other human induced disasters, as well as the rest of the world rejoicing?

          “Thirdly, the name currently given to this millenia old responsability to the human species is called …………..flat earthness? ignorance? bigotry? stupidity? Marriage?”

          Marriage in the form you presumably espouse, is neither universal nor the most common form of social contract for raising kids within. The only way you can have marriage in the way you mean is to remove the human rights of women (or men maybe, but I don’t think that’s ever been done). We tried that, it’s been a disaster, we’re getting over it now.

        • The Al1en 3.1.2.5
          23 March 2013 at 11:30 pm

          “Tell me Anne, what follows on from 20 lesbians and 20 gay men being the last people on earth?

          Here, I’ll start you off…..firstly, they would ‘change’ to save mankind!”

          Oh, the biggest of lol’s for that one. I almost spat out my cider laughing at reading that. 😆

          “change to save mankind” 😆 Why? They would have already won the evolutionary race 😆

        • QoT 3.1.2.6
          24 March 2013 at 9:27 am

          they would ‘change’ to save mankind!

          Thank you, Harriet, for proving one of my points about Family First and their ilk: utterly obsessed with sex.

          A lesbian would not stop being a lesbian just because she’d consent to sex with a man for the purposes of procreation.

          A gay man would not stop being gay just because he’d consent to sex with a woman for the purposes of procreation.

          And now let me blow your mind: if it were only 40 lesbians left on the planet, they might still be able to reproduce, because not all lesbians are cisgendered.

          • AsleepWhileWalking 3.1.2.6.1
            24 March 2013 at 10:13 am

            lol – speak to your audience QoT, I don’t think Harriet will be able to get her mind around that

          • Harriet 3.1.2.6.2
            24 March 2013 at 11:20 am

            “….A lesbian would not stop being a lesbian just because she’d consent to sex with a man for the purposes of procreation….”

            What other purpose is there?

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.6.2.1
              24 March 2013 at 11:22 am

              lolz

            • Flashing Light 3.1.2.6.2.2
              24 March 2013 at 11:28 am

              Harriet,

              If your only purpose for having sex with a man is to get pregnant, I think you may be a lesbian.

            • QoT 3.1.2.6.2.3
              24 March 2013 at 12:03 pm

              A lot of people find sex enjoyable, Harriet. And enjoyment can be purpose enough for plenty of activities.

              Some people don’t find sex enjoyable, of course, and no one should tell them they have to; but I suspect your issue is not that you’re asexual, just that you’re willing to pretend that anyone whose life is different to yours doesn’t exist in order to oppress them.

              • Harriet …
                24 March 2013 at 1:17 pm

                [QoT: Referring to people as having “less meaningful lives” because they’re gay contravenes my previous warning to you.]

                • Harriet …
                  24 March 2013 at 1:51 pm

                  [QoT: Trying to retcon your original comment is not a winning tactic.]

                  • Harriet …
                    24 March 2013 at 2:25 pm

                    Then why don’t you print it – I’m claiming it, not you – I’m sure that you readers can see if it has any ‘value’ or not!

                    And that I’m not ‘retconing’ it – or lying! 😎

                    [QoT: It’s been consigned to the dustbin of history. You are welcome to post further comments which do not demean same-sex relationships. If you can.]

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      24 March 2013 at 4:03 pm

                      Why should people have to read your disgusting hate speech, Harriet?

                      Keep on taking out the trash QoT!

            • Murray Olsen 3.1.2.6.2.4
              24 March 2013 at 5:19 pm

              What other purpose for sex? Ask Graham Cappill.
              Are you for real, Harriet, or are you just taking the piss? If you are, it’s great satire.

            • millsy 3.1.2.6.2.5
              24 March 2013 at 6:25 pm

              Fuck youre a prude Harriet.

              You had a bloke finger your clit/G-spot at all.?

              Perhaps such an experience would lighten you up.

              • karol …
                24 March 2013 at 7:20 pm

                I think that’s offensive, millsy – doubly so on a thread about sexual and marriage equality to make macho heterosexist assumptions.

                • millsy …
                  24 March 2013 at 7:29 pm

                  Sorry karol but she started by slagging off gays. Dont know why people get uptight about same sex coupling, not like its mandatory or anything. If people are really worried by that, then they are free to move to Saudi Arabia.

                  • karol …
                    24 March 2013 at 7:48 pm

                    Well, millsy, I am not in favour of her homophobia, but, as a lesbian, I don’t find such macho insults helpful.

                    • millsy …
                      24 March 2013 at 7:52 pm

                      Truth be told, karol, I am the last man that you would want to be calling ‘macho’.

                      [QoT: millsy, this isn’t a fun little game. Your comment, to which karol rightfully objected, buys into a lot of sexist bullshit about women’s sexuality. Stop it.]

          • Rhinocrates 3.1.2.6.3
            24 March 2013 at 12:14 pm

            For your amusement, and to totally confuse Harriet, this from Claire Dowie (in Didn’t You Kill My Mother-In-Law? a history of Brit alternative comedy)

            I slept with a man. I don’t know – I thought it was OK, I thought it was right-on radical… ‘cos he was gay as well… it’s true, he’s one of my best friends, and he’s so lovely, he’s so camp… but anyway, I ended up in bed with him – don’t try it. If you’re a butch dyke, and if you go to bed with a very camp man, don’t try it… It was awful… I can’t explain it… it was like there was a penis running around in the bed and we weren’t sure who it belonged to… It was like, ‘Is that yours?’ – ‘No, that’s not mine, mine’s bigger than that’…

        • Roy 3.1.2.7
          25 March 2013 at 11:29 am

          ‘Everyone – scientists included – see ‘reason’ and ‘form’ in nature.’

          I don’t see ‘reason’, I see evolution.

          I also see a tremendous amount of homosexuality. Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species, but homophobia is found in only one. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that homosexuality is natural and homophobia is not.

          Does it ever occur to you that after WWI, when New Zealand lost a very substantial proportion of its male population of reproductive age, many boys were raised by their mother and another woman (often an aunt or grandmother) and turned out just fine? For that matter, has it ever occurred to you that many lesbian and gay couples are raising fine healthy kids right now?

  4. kiwi_prometheus 4
    23 March 2013 at 8:46 pm

    “they still want to emphasise that your child is disadvantaged, their rights are being breached, and you are incapable of raising them properly on your own.”

    How hypocritical. Queen Thorns and her ilk are always bleeting about the need for more tax payer handouts to teenagers who keep punching out fatherless sprogs – you know, because they are so liberal and sexually free to get blind drunk and wake up under some 17 yo boy they don’t even know the name of.

    And don’t forget the tax payer is also expected to pick up the tab for the explosion in sexual diseases since ‘womens lib’.

    • Anne 4.1
      23 March 2013 at 10:14 pm

      And don’t forget the tax payer is also expected to pick up the tab for the explosion in sexual diseases since ‘womens lib’.

      Here we go… it’s all the fault of women. We are the cause of every dastardly deed ever committed by man. Poor kp… anyone who hates women that much is to be pitied. 😛

      • Harriet 4.1.1
        23 March 2013 at 10:54 pm

        “…..Here we go… it’s all the fault of women. We are the cause of every dastardly deed ever committed by man. Poor kp… anyone who hates women that much is to be pitied….”

        Womans’ independance is a falsehood as no woman is an island – women by nature are sociable and they are meant to be interdependant – you for one – is always talking to someone else – all day and half of the night!

        Anyone would think Anne that you NEED the reasurrance! Most here are males!

        Anyway, there is no value in gay relationships as that is why ‘gay adoption’ is being called for. – Gay ‘marriage’ was only ever a means to and end! Gays don’t produce anything, they simply co-habitate, but as humans they feel the need to contribute. They now fool themselves into believing that ‘gay adoption’ will be a satisfactory outcome for themselves and the adopted children, but it is not possable as the ‘value’ is in ‘parenting’ the children into a complete being- a hetrosexual union that reproduces: the very antithesis of what they are currently trying to achieve: equivalancy.

        Parenting in itself, and the end result, is about hetrosexuality. Funny that. 😎

        • Colonial Weka 4.1.1.1
          23 March 2013 at 11:12 pm

          “Womans’ independance is a falsehood as no woman is an island – women by nature are sociable and they are meant to be interdependant”

          Only an idiot would equate women’s freedom from oppression with dissociation from relationship, family, community. There are plenty of examples of societies that don’t enforce het, monogamous, lifelong marriages, and still raise their children well.

          • Roy 4.1.1.1.1
            25 March 2013 at 11:34 am

            I can think, offhand, of three female friends who would be incensed by the description “women by nature are sociable and they are meant to be interdependant”
            They are all strong introverts and proud to manage by themselves. But perhaps they are the statistical outliers. I will know when you provide a peer-reviewed reference that supports your generalisation.

        • QoT 4.1.1.2
          24 March 2013 at 9:33 am

          Anyway, there is no value in gay relationships as that is why ‘gay adoption’ is being called for. – Gay ‘marriage’ was only ever a means to and end! Gays don’t produce anything

          Harriet, I’m putting my moderator hat on now. Further comments which are hateful of same-sex relationships will be moderated. You have more than demonstrated your lack of compassion, empathy and understanding for queer people and their families. I’ve had enough of it on my thread.

        • Rosie 4.1.1.3
          24 March 2013 at 2:29 pm

          Harriet, you made some hilarious statements about women and independence the other day on The Daily Blog.
          Now you are making some more hilarious statements this time about “….a heterosexual union that reproduces”. News flash. Not all heterosexual unions exist for the purpose of procreation.
          What if I told you that some couples, even married ones, choose not to breed?

          Also, what if “family” means a group of people that you belong to through love and loyalty who are not your biological family?
          Theres more to family than Mum, Dad and the kids. Believe me, that Mum, Dad and The Kids deal is not what I have experienced in life. It’s my other “family” that have been there in the worst of times and best of times, when whats left of my biological family wouldn’t even know.

        • AsleepWhileWalking 4.1.1.4
          24 March 2013 at 3:32 pm

          Gays don’t produce anything, they simply co-habitate, but as humans they feel the need to contribute

          Now your just being insulting. Before you were entertaining me but now it’s getting boring because the intellectual stimulation in your argument isn’t there. Eat some sugar and come back.

      • The Al1en 4.1.2
        23 March 2013 at 11:34 pm

        “anyone who hates women that much is to be pitied.”

        Indeed. Love women, even your wives and girlfriends.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2
      23 March 2013 at 11:05 pm

      You know, every time I see a rant like that from people I just assume it’s cause is that the person is just not getting laid and their actually jealous. Of course the reason why they’re not getting laid is because they’re a bunch of self-righteous pricks with an over developed sense of entitlement.

      BTW, kiwi_prometheus, what you describe there is rape so that would make you a promulgator of rape culture.

      BTW, you should also check out the History of Condoms. STDs have been around a long, long time and people have been sleeping around just as long.

      • Roy 4.2.1
        25 March 2013 at 11:37 am

        “You know, every time I see a rant like that from people I just assume it’s cause is that the person is just not getting laid and their actually jealous. Of course the reason why they’re not getting laid is because they’re a bunch of self-righteous pricks with an over developed sense of entitlement.”

        I always assume exactly the same thing and yes, it is generally very obvious why those angry, bitter misogynists are not getting laid.

    • QoT 4.3
      24 March 2013 at 9:34 am

      fatherless sprogs

      DPB recipients have invented parthenogenesis? Amazing! Have scientific publications been informed?

      And per Draco’s post, nice rape culture demonstration there. I didn’t realise teenage women had magnets in their genitalia which forced men to “get on top of them” when they’re unconscious.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 4.4
      24 March 2013 at 10:19 am

      So women’s lib for you = sexually transmitted diseases caused by those “blind drunk” women no doubt. Unfortunately there were sexually transmitted diseases in abundance long before women’s lib was ever conceived.

      I bet both you are Harriet were fun in your 20’s, and I mean that sincerely because this is the most entertaining thread I’ve read for a long time.

  5. kiwi_prometheus 5
    23 March 2013 at 8:48 pm

    “They probably think “kids are better off with two parents than one.””

    No, they think a child has a right to a mother and a father.

    Two mommies don’t make a good father, Queen of Manhaters, no matter how much Social Constructivist mumbo jumbo you try to hid it under.

    • Colonial Weka 5.1
      23 March 2013 at 9:04 pm

      So widows and widowers should be forced to remarry?

      The two-parent nuclear family is a tiny fragment of how children have been raised historically, and has been shown to be an unstable form of family unless you force heterosexual couples to stay together for life (usually by removing women’s financial and legal independence). It’s a blip that hopefully will soon be rectified. It’s likely that families and communities do best when children are raised in extended family situations.

      • kiwi_prometheus 5.1.1
        23 March 2013 at 9:21 pm

        More Social Constructivist nonsense.

        “It’s a blip that hopefully will soon be rectified.”

        Why don’t you Gay Marriage lot stand up in public and make that crazy extremist claim, in our democracy?

        Go on, lets see how much support you would get from the citizens of NZ then.

        Sweet FA is what you would get, Weka, thats why you hide your true colours from NZers and try to advance your cause behind lies.

        • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1
          23 March 2013 at 9:32 pm

          “Why don’t you Gay Marriage lot stand up in public and make that crazy extremist claim, in our democracy?”

          This is a public website, you know.

          Also Weka’s point had nothing to do with gay marriage anyway; (s)he simply stated that extended families make the best situation in which to raise children. So if anything, you should be happy for that viewpoint, because any homosexual couple with children is 99.99% guaranteed to have a heterosexual extended family.

        • Colonial Weka 5.1.1.2
          23 March 2013 at 9:52 pm

          “Go on, lets see how much support you would get from the citizens of NZ then.”

          Pretty much every parent I have ever known would say that extended family are a boon for raising kids. Esp the ones that live in a different place then the rest of their family.

        • AsleepWhileWalking 5.1.1.3
          24 March 2013 at 10:27 am

          “extremist claim” – you mean the claim that our radical MP’s who democratically represent our nation are about to pass into law? This thread just keeps getting better and better ; )

    • Andrew Geddis 5.2
      23 March 2013 at 9:05 pm

      Oh dear – the topic has worked its magic and summoned a crazy.

      “No, they think a child has a right to a mother and a father.”

      What does this mean? That there is a corresponding duty to provide a child with a mother and a father on … whom? The parents of the child? So, divorce is to be abolished, I guess. That’ll come as a shock to a big chunk of straight couples. Or, is it the State that has this duty? So, we’ll have to have mandatory taking of children from single parents in order to place them with “proper” families. Just like Australia did up until the early 80s. Look how well that worked out.

      In reality, of course, this is a meaningless bumper-sticker slogan which sounds a bit better than “don’t let the fags and dykes have kids”.

      Two mommies don’t make a good father, Queen of Manhaters, no matter how much Social Constructivist mumbo jumbo you try to hid it under.

      No. But they don’t have to. Two mommies can make two good mommies. And the evidence (as in, what happens in the real world, not in social constructivist theory) is that kids with two good mommies do every bit as well as kids with a good mommy and good daddy. See, e.g., http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html

      • kiwi_prometheus 5.2.1
        23 March 2013 at 9:15 pm

        “Two mommies can make two good mommies.”

        But they don’t make a good father.

        Every child has a right to a biological mother and father, of course circumstances sometimes mean this can’t happen.

        But this is no excuse for a government or society to actively promote fatherless or motherless families.

        Your social ‘science’ references mean nothing – some of the so called ‘research’ tries to claim gay families are superior – but I don’t see you lot parroting that claim in the media – obviously because your little propaganda crusade would crash and burn if you tried.

        • Andrew Geddis 5.2.1.1
          23 March 2013 at 9:24 pm

          But they don’t make a good father.

          So what? Where is your evidence that a child raised by two mothers is in any way disadvantaged/worse off than a child raised by a mother and a father? You can’t just say “it must be so” … or, rather, you can. But it’s a piss weak claim.

          Every child has a right to a biological mother and father…

          Now you are just mindlessly repeating yourself. Explain what this means, or else find something new to say.

          Your social ‘science’ references mean nothing…

          So, we’re not interested in any actual evidence on this topic? Oh well, then – if we’re just dealing in opinions, you’ll note the numbers in Parliament and realise that we won, you lost, eat that.

          • mikesh 5.2.1.1.1
            24 March 2013 at 12:38 am

            “So what? Where is your evidence that a child raised by two mothers is in any way disadvantaged/worse off than a child raised by a mother and a father? You can’t just say “it must be so” … or, rather, you can. But it’s a piss weak claim.”

            I think this perhaps is something that can’t be proved either way since the impacts of the two situations on the same child can’t really be compared. However it’s a reasonable supposition that a mother and father is preferable to two mothers (or two fathers).

            • Andrew Geddis 5.2.1.1.1.1
              24 March 2013 at 8:31 am

              However it’s a reasonable supposition that a mother and father is preferable to two mothers (or two fathers).

              Why? What makes it “reasonable”? Given that you say the supposition “can’t be proved either way”, why do you hold it?

              There’s been enough same sex couples raising kids for long enough to create a big enough data set to shed some light on this. And, as I linked to before, that light indicates just the opposite of your “reasonable supposition”.

              • mikesh …
                24 March 2013 at 12:10 pm

                Maybe. But, as I said, that “evidence” will always be suspect because it’s not possible to compare the two impacts on the same child. And while we obviously are not able to prove the opposite it seems intuitively likely, other things being equal.

                • QoT …
                  24 March 2013 at 12:13 pm

                  The evidence will only be suspect because people like you, mike, suddenly decide that standard scientific methods of studying social outcomes magically aren’t valid when it comes to an issue where the evidence contradicts what you “think” the answer should be.

                  Now please, do enlighten us as to what “intuitive” benefits having a penis-possessing adult who identifies as male and a vagina-possessing adult who identifies as female in the household give to a child.

                • Andrew Geddis …
                  24 March 2013 at 12:23 pm

                  And while we obviously are not able to prove the opposite it seems intuitively likely, other things being equal.

                  As intuitively likely as the sun going around the earth? After all, it doesn’t feel like we are moving, so it stands to reason that it must be the sun that is. Or as intuitively likely as humans being able to alter the earth’s climate? After all, we are so very, very small and it is so very, very big. Or as intuitively likely as living creatures being the result of natural selection? After all, it sure looks like they deliberately were designed to do the things that they do.

                  But putting the often illusory nature of “intuitive truth” to one side, and despite your claim that the issue is not amenable to proof, the data set is big enough that we surely still ought to be able to see some correlative relationship that supports the claim that two straight parents are (on the whole, in the round) better for kids than two same sex ones. So … where it is?

                  • lprent …
                    24 March 2013 at 12:40 pm

                    You could write an encyclopedia on the failures of “common sense” and intuition as predictive instruments throughout history. Start with the widespread intuition about the curative properties of radium and x-rays being a particularly spectacular failure.

                    ..see some correlative relationship that supports the claim that two straight parents are (on the whole, in the round) better for kids than two same sex ones. So … where it is?

                    And the data set sizes for the question are more than ample to show any such correlation if it existed and have been for decades. The few same-sex couples that I have seen raising kids appear to raise saner progeny than most straight couples I know. But that could simply be because they have to think about conception outside of the passion of the moment.

                    But yeah, if there was a scientific statistically significant study anywhere (rather than this propaganda opinion piece from Curia of other peoples unfounded opinions on an ambiguous question), then I don’t know about it. The curious absence of anything scientific in the face of all of the bigoted fools around who’d be willing to fund a “good” result (like Curia’s poll) suggests that mikesh’s intuition is just unfounded and inaccurate.

                  • mikesh …
                    24 March 2013 at 4:00 pm

                    Natural parents are often “thrown in at the deep end” while adoptive parents, of either sexuality, have probably read all the approved books on parenting. You may well say that this is good thing, and maybe it is. But isn’t it likely to introduce a bias into any statistical studies.

                    It is not the presence of a “penis possessing male adult and a vagina possessing female adult”, as QoT puts it in her rather emotional outburst above, that renders natural parenting likely to be a preferable option, but the fact that the children are likely to share some of the genetic characteristics ot the parents. Brainy parents are likely to have brainy children, athletic parents athletic children etc.

                    [QoT: Trying to criticise my comment as “emotional” is not a winning move, mike. If you use any further classic misogynist trolling techniques on my post your comments will be deleted.]

                    • Andrew Geddis …
                      24 March 2013 at 4:51 pm

                      Natural parents are often “thrown in at the deep end” while adoptive parents, of either sexuality, have probably read all the approved books on parenting.

                      As someone who has two adopted children with my wife, can I just say that this is complete rubbish? For child number one, we received a week’s notice that she was coming to us (just 3 weeks after being “approved” as potential adoptive parents). For child number two, it was 10 days. I’d suggest that this is a bit more “being thrown in the deep end” than having a child after nine months of pregnancy.

                      Furthermore, on what basis do you speculate that potential parents wanting to adopt read more parenting books than people who know they are pregnant and will be having a child in 9 months? Even for someone whose arguments seem entirely based on evidence-free “intuition”, this is a compete stretch.

                    • mikesh …
                      24 March 2013 at 5:15 pm

                      If you have taken offense at my comment then I apologise, However it seemed to me that the expressions “penis possessing male” and “vagina poosing female” were somewhat emotionally charged expressions. You might well have said “a man and a woman”. I would also be interested in being shown where I have used a “misogynist trolling technique”.

                    • QoT []
                      24 March 2013 at 5:24 pm

                      I was being precise, mike, since not all women have vaginas and not all men have penises – and I felt, and feel, comfortable to assume that your “intuitive” assumptions about childrearing aren’t open-minded enough to include trans people.

                      You used a misogynistic trolling technique when you referred to my comment as a “rather emotional outburst”. It’s basic tone policing.

                      And I don’t accept apologies when they’re insincere “I’m sorry if” bullshit.

                    • mikesh …
                      24 March 2013 at 6:45 pm

                      Fair enough. Points taken.

        • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.2
          23 March 2013 at 9:24 pm

          But this is no excuse for a government or society to actively promote fatherless or motherless families.

          You don’t argue against a need for Government and society to recognise and respect them however.

          • kiwi_prometheus 5.2.1.2.1
            23 March 2013 at 9:28 pm

            Respect citizens of course, recognise same sex marriages, of course not.

            It is Queen of MANHATERS who has no respect for anyone who doesn’t kowtow to her crazy Social Constructivist Feminist nonsense.

            [lprent: Stay away from attacking the authors unless you really want your ability to comment here removed. This is your warning, but since I suspect that you are going to find that it is impossible for you to change your computer redecoration behaviour I’m going to manually release your comments for a while. ]

            • Andrew Geddis 5.2.1.2.1.1
              23 March 2013 at 9:44 pm

              Oh dear. Don’t let the flecks of spittle short out your computer keyboard, k_p.

            • QoT 5.2.1.2.1.2
              24 March 2013 at 9:41 am

              You persist in pigeonholing me, k_p. This was initially amusing given your own previous comments, but I’m bored with my posts being derailed by your constant, baseless whinging, and your frequent namecalling. lprent has given you multiple warnings. Do it again and you’re perma-banned from my posts.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.3
          23 March 2013 at 11:12 pm

          But they don’t make a good father.

          They don’t need one if they’re in an extended family, whanau, or just a caring and open community because they’ll be lots of great guys around to act as male role models. What you’re afraid of can only happen if people divorce themselves from society. Of course, that has been happening as the nuclear family has been forced upon society by the church and business.

          • mikesh 5.2.1.3.1
            24 March 2013 at 12:47 am

            I don’t know that the church has been responsible for the nuclear family. But I do think that the church has done a lot to give extramarital forms of cohabitation a bad name.

    • QoT 5.3
      24 March 2013 at 9:35 am

      Science says you are wrong.

    • Roy 5.4
      25 March 2013 at 11:40 am

      I don’t know many lesbian couples with children, but the ones I do know make special efforts to ensure that their kids have good male role models in their lives. I assume that gay men do the same; include good female role models in their kids’ lives. There is no need for those role models to be the parents themselves.

  6. Psycho Milt 6
    23 March 2013 at 8:59 pm

    Aren’t you glad, solo parents, that Family First is able to acknowledge that death has “delivered” a sub-optimal family situation for your child?

    I presume you don’t have a child yourself. I can’t speak for widow/widower parents, but know that most live parents wholeheartedly share my view that the death of the other parent mos def would “deliver a sub-optimal family situation,” and that yes our children would equally mos def be missing out on a lot by not having that other parent to help look after them.

    • kiwi_prometheus 6.1
      23 March 2013 at 9:08 pm

      [lprent: deleted – no content relevant to the topic – and see http://#comment-608433 about attacking authors ]

    • gorj 6.2
      23 March 2013 at 9:18 pm

      The death of my abusive and cheating grandfather was the best thing that ever happened to gran and mum. Not according to FF tho..

      • kiwi_prometheus 6.2.1
        23 March 2013 at 9:23 pm

        Nice to know what motivates your blind hatred for heterosexual marriage.

        • gorj 6.2.1.1
          23 March 2013 at 9:27 pm

          🙄

          • kiwi_prometheus 6.2.1.1.1
            23 March 2013 at 9:29 pm

            [lprent: deleted – no content relevant to the topic – and see http://#comment-608433 about attacking authors ]

            • Pascal's bookie 6.2.1.1.1.1
              23 March 2013 at 9:31 pm

              Based on this:

              socially constructed the debate as Righteous Feminist Freedom Fighters

              you probably shouldn’t follow that line much further k_p. Stick the offensive bullshit and leave the 5 dollar words to those who have earned them.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.3
      23 March 2013 at 11:23 pm

      And yet if you were in an extended family such a loss would not be quite as devastating because there would be others around to pick up the slack.

      • Psycho Milt 6.3.1
        24 March 2013 at 7:41 am

        I see it’s not just Family First that has a prescriptive answer to what a family should look like. We all have extended families already – if most are anything like mine, the various extended family members don’t live in the same town, and in some cases not even the same country. Living in a village with all your relatives and having a hard time avoiding in-breeding are thankfully parts of the now very-distant past.

        Not to mention: no number of aunts, grandparents and older cousins replaces a parent – historically, being passed around various relatives has been a recipe for child abuse and various other problems. At the population level, a child is better off with its own parents.

        • QoT 6.3.1.1
          24 March 2013 at 9:50 am

          There’s nothing “prescriptive” about acknowledging that there are a wide variety of family setups, and that many people have extended support networks which aren’t limited to blood relations.

          People who argue against same-sex couples adopting (ignoring the ridiculous situation we have now where gay individuals can adopt just fine) try to pretend that the only two adults who can ever have an effect on a child’s life and development are the parents. Not the extended family, not the parents’ friends, not their school teachers. That’s what’s prescriptive.

          Trying to paint extended family support networks as “being passed around various relatives” so your argument looks better is a little shabby when that’s clearly not what anyone’s talking about.

          • Psycho Milt 6.3.1.1.1
            24 March 2013 at 12:40 pm

            There’s nothing “prescriptive” about acknowledging that there are a wide variety of family setups, and that many people have extended support networks which aren’t limited to blood relations.

            Sure. I’ve encountered Mr Bastard’s attitude to the nuclear family before, that’s all.

            Trying to paint extended family support networks as “being passed around various relatives” so your argument looks better is a little shabby when that’s clearly not what anyone’s talking about.

            Meh – it may not be what people talk about, but it’s what “being looked after by extended family” tends to mean in practice. I don’t share hippies’ rose-tinted view of extended families.

            • QoT 6.3.1.1.1.1
              24 March 2013 at 12:50 pm

              You deliberately misinterpret someone’s argument and your response to this being pointed out is “meh” – after which you present a just-so story about families raising children which neatly fits your argument and erases a hell of a lot of other societies’ and cultures’ approaches to childrearing (oh, that’s right – “no one” lives in villages any more, lol inbreeding).

              Something tells me you really aren’t presenting your own opinions so much as you’re shit-stirring. How totally edgy and awesome of you. 🙄

              • Psycho Milt …
                24 March 2013 at 1:00 pm

                I’m aware many people around the world still do live in villages with all their relatives and get to figure out ways to avoid inbreeding. It’s just not particularly relevant to the formulation of social policy in this country.

                And I’m not misinterpreting someone’s argument. The “argument,” if you could call it that, was that loss of a parent isn’t such a big deal if you have an extended family close by to “take up the slack.” It’s an expression of Mr Bastard’s view that parents are over-rated, so not one I bother treating with a great deal of respect.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.3.1.1.1.2
              24 March 2013 at 2:56 pm

              Meh – it may not be what people talk about, but it’s what “being looked after by extended family” tends to mean in practice.

              [citation needed]

        • Colonial Weka 6.3.1.2
          24 March 2013 at 12:37 pm

          “Not to mention: no number of aunts, grandparents and older cousins replaces a parent – historically, being passed around various relatives has been a recipe for child abuse and various other problems. At the population level, a child is better off with its own parents.”

          Citation needed.

          There is a difference between extended family situations that are stable that raise kids, and ‘passing a kid round the rellies’. I’m not even sure what you are referring to historically, but it sounds like families/societies that have been severely disrupted. I was talking about cultures where childrearing is done withing a wider group than 2 het adults. That’s doesn’t exclude the biological parents in the way you seem to think it does.

        • Flashing Light 6.3.1.3
          24 March 2013 at 12:48 pm

          We all have extended families already – if most are anything like mine, the various extended family members don’t live in the same town, and in some cases not even the same country.

          Seeing as you’ve on a couple of occasions used your own situation to make generalised claims about the world, can I just say that having kids with my partner and having grandparents and uncles/aunts living in the same city is just fantastic. Insofar as you are missing out on this, I’m sorry. Not that you aren’t doing a great job as a parent, but it is a lot easier and less stressful with willing family hands to call on regularly.

          Also, Jared Diamond presents a somewhat rosier picture of communal child raising than you do: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/06/jared-diamond-tribal-life-anthropology

          • Psycho Milt 6.3.1.3.1
            24 March 2013 at 1:07 pm

            …can I just say that having kids with my partner and having grandparents and uncles/aunts living in the same city is just fantastic.

            I don’t doubt it. But it doesn’t help me look any more favourably on Draco T. Bastard’s view that the death of your partner would matter less because your relatives would “take up the slack.”

            • Colonial Weka 6.3.1.3.1.1
              24 March 2013 at 1:35 pm

              Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. If your basic survival needs aren’t met adequately, it’s harder to grieve or deal with higher order needs like family and social.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.3.1.3.1.2
              24 March 2013 at 3:02 pm

              You’re putting word in my mouth. I didn’t say that it would matter less, I said it would be less devastating. Losing 50% of the adults in the family is going to cause a hell of a lot more disruption than losing 10%. The emotional pain would still be the same.

    • QoT 6.4
      24 March 2013 at 9:37 am

      That’s not the point, PM. The point is that Family First are pretending to be gracious by saying “Your child is going to be fucked up beyond repair, oh, but if your partner died we won’t forcibly take your child away from you, so be grateful.”

      You will note Harriet upthread apparently thinks your child should be forcibly removed from you if your partner dies.

      As to my own reproductive status, it is not relevant to this conversation and it’s none of your fucking business. Future speculation on it gets the mod-boot.

      [lprent: drat – missed that one. ]

      • Psycho Milt 6.4.1
        24 March 2013 at 12:32 pm

        Your “reproductive status” is of no interest – it was a rhetorical point only.

        You seem to have read something into that statement by Family First that just isn’t there. The statement says that some children might have to do without one parent due to the realities of life and death, but we shouldn’t voluntarily inflict such a thing on children as a matter of public policy. I think that view is wrong, but it’s a view they’re entitled to hold and it implies no offence to widows/widowers or whatever village they’ve got raising their child.

        • QoT 6.4.1.1
          24 March 2013 at 12:47 pm

          Really, PM, this entire line of argument is beneath you. It wasn’t a “rhetorical point”, it was a presumption about my “validity” to hold an opinion on family-related issues.

          And no one is saying “Family First has no right to hold views”. What they shouldn’t do is (a) present their opinions as fact (b) wilfully manipulate people into giving them the answers they want and (c) oppress people.

  7. kiwi_prometheus 7
    23 March 2013 at 9:05 pm

    [lprent: deleted no content relevant to the topic – and see http://#comment-608433 about attacking authors ]

  8. Colonial Viper 8
    23 March 2013 at 9:22 pm

    “Family first” is on a demographic losing streak. It’s idiotic.

  9. Tanz 9
    23 March 2013 at 9:25 pm

    Good on Familty First. At least they have some morals.

    • kiwi_prometheus 9.1
      23 March 2013 at 9:30 pm

      [lprent: deleted – no content relevant to the topic – and see http://#comment-608433 about attacking authors ]

    • Flashing Light 9.2
      23 March 2013 at 9:32 pm

      Tanz,

      Of course, the Taleban have some pretty strong morals as well. Good on them, too?

      And I seem to remember a pretty moral dude who said some things like “judge not, least you be judged”, “love one another as I have loved you” and “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, while he hung around in the company of whores and tax collectors. There’s even a book about him.

      • Murray Olsen 9.2.1
        23 March 2013 at 11:59 pm

        I suspect the tax collector bit was added in after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

    • Pete 9.3
      23 March 2013 at 11:33 pm

      “Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike” – Oscar Wilde

    • Draco T Bastard 9.4
      23 March 2013 at 11:42 pm

      No, they’re completely immoral, possibly amoral. That’s what comes when you try to force your narrow POV of life upon everybody else.

    • millsy 9.5
      23 March 2013 at 11:48 pm

      Morals my arse. Moral are usually an exuse to kick down the doors on consenting adults.

      Do you want homosexuality recriminalised, because it looks like that is what you want to do. You and every other dirty filthy god botherer.

      In a world where SCIENTIFIC PROCESSES are understood, your religion is outdated, and used as an excuse to control what people do with their lives.

      Even the new pope is a scientist. How ironic, seeing as the Catholic Church once burnt them at the stake.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 9.6
      24 March 2013 at 10:44 am

      You seem to confuse morals with strong opinion.

  10. millsy 10
    23 March 2013 at 11:37 pm

    Tanz, Harriet, and KP — do you want homosexuality recriminalised and for the state to kick down the doors on the bedroom of consenting adults?

    Yes or no.

    You three, along with McCroskie, will stop at nothing to liquidate the homosexual population, and shoehorn everyone at gunpoint into a mum/dad and 2 children arrangement, whether that makes people happy or not.

    This must be opposed.

    If you win, we can be assured that people will be criminalised for:

    having sex out side of marriage
    holding hands
    wearing sexy clothes
    having a divorce
    having an abortion
    teaching evolution in our schools
    having a porn mag in our drawer.

    Everything,.

    • Murray Olsen 10.1
      24 March 2013 at 12:15 am

      Edited to better reflect the actual situation:

      If you win, we can be assured that people will be criminalised for:

      getting caught having sex out side of marriage
      being seen in public holding hands
      wearing sexy clothes when uncle isn’t visiting
      women wanting a divorce
      having an abortion
      teaching evolution in our schools without giving equal time to creation science and the Bible, and stressing that evolution is just a theory, like cows, for example
      letting anyone know that we have a porn mag in our drawer.

      Everything,.

      With very few exceptions, these moralists and bigotted fundamentalists turn out to be hypocrites. They insist that the rest of us attain the absolute moral purity that they themselves can never quite reach.

      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1
        24 March 2013 at 12:18 am

        Curious obsessional predelictions

      • Pete 10.1.2
        24 March 2013 at 12:20 am

        Relax. Culture war’s over. We’ve already won. Hearts and minds have been changed and the Westboro types will dissipate like mist in the sunshine. A new day is dawning.

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.1
          24 March 2013 at 12:24 am

          The loss of civil liberties only ever comes a few dollars at a time*

          *paraphrased from The West Wing

        • Murray Olsen 10.1.2.2
          24 March 2013 at 1:06 am

          We might have the upper hand, but people who are 100% sure they are doing God’s work never really stop. Stranger things have happened, such as the rise of Islamic fundamentalism since the West started overthrowing secular populist/socialist/nationalist regimes all through the Middle East. It can never hurt to remember just what these people represent.

        • Colonial Weka 10.1.2.3
          24 March 2013 at 10:34 am

          “Relax. Culture war’s over. We’ve already won. Hearts and minds have been changed and the Westboro types will dissipate like mist in the sunshine. A new day is dawning.”

          That’s not the experience of feminism. After the new day dawning, comes the backlash. Not sure if this will play out the same with gender and sexuality issues, because proportionally they are less of a threat to the status quo. But feminism had its new dawn, and then had to re-engage the fight as gains were co-opted and avenues thought open were just dead ends. We have been allowed certain rights, but they are by not means universal nor set in stone. We can still lose. And the threat is not just from the religious fundamentalists, it is such a mistake to think that.

          • QoT 10.1.2.3.1
            24 March 2013 at 10:44 am

            Agreed, CW. Not to mention the fact that just because we can see we’re at a tipping point, and It Gets Better from here on in, doesn’t change the fact that a lot of people right now still face very real oppression and very real threats – physical, psychological, financial – from the parts of society which aren’t happy about the progress we’re making.

          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.3.2
            24 March 2013 at 3:05 pm

            Well said and I see it happening to democracy especially under this government.

            • Colonial Weka 10.1.2.3.2.1
              24 March 2013 at 4:58 pm

              Yes. I despair of NZ sometimes, and struggle to see why people are not protesting what is going on. The only explanations I can think of are the frog on the pot of water on the boil analogy, or that the global situation is so scarey now that people are just unable to engage anymore.

    • Harriet 10.2
      24 March 2013 at 12:37 am

      “…..You three [Tanz, Harriet, and KP] , along with McCroskie, will stop at nothing to liquidate the homosexual population, and shoehorn everyone at gunpoint into a mum/dad and 2 children arrangement, whether that makes people happy or not…..”

      No….not really.

      Hetrosexual lives by themselves, are fulfilling as they are – there is no need to equate them with anything else!
      Promoting them however as the ‘ideal’ affords women and children an additional level of welfare. Married people are healthier and wealthier.They are facts. And promoting that is just civil duty if one is concerned about child welfare and it’s cost to individuals and society. Most young men in prison today in the west, have spent very little, or no time at all, with their natural fathers.

      We are allowed by law to value relationships anyway we want. Why would we want to tell our children that childless gay relationships are satisfactory when evidence suggests that they arn’t? Just look at the claim for ‘needed’ adoption by gays, and the suicide, mental illness, drugs, alcohol ect stats.

      Gays and their supporters just need to understand that we will decide the values that our children are taught – not enforced upon them by ‘agents of change’ !
      Gays ect aren’t being ‘strung up in the streets’ – infact, I’d say gays have it about as good as they’ll ever get it – as the law no longer defines gays as anything less than anyone else! No one cares that gays exist in society.It’s not a problem in itself.
      So ‘change’ enforced into the minds of children is not needed as there is nothing to change!

      Children will simply accept gays for who and what they are – under their own esteem.Enforcing a viewpoint about gays onto adolescents will simply alert them to question it’s validation: assumed inferiorority or wrong doing by gays if there is no evidence of persecution.

      And besides, I had children for my own sake – not for the sake of the gaybourhood! 😎

      • Colonial Viper 10.2.1
        24 March 2013 at 12:38 am

        Are you sure you live in the same country as the rest of us? Just asking.

      • Draco T Bastard 10.2.2
        24 March 2013 at 12:55 am

        Most young men in prison today in the west, have spent very little, or no time at all, with their natural fathers.

        [Citation Needed]

        And do make sure it’s peer reviewed scientific literature and not from some religious BS.

        Why would we want to tell our children that childless gay relationships are satisfactory when evidence suggests that they arn’t?

        Because the evidence, the real stuff and not the stuff made up by bigots, shows that such relationships are just as good as hetero ones.

        • Flashing Light 10.2.2.1
          24 March 2013 at 8:39 am

          Most young men in prison today in the west, have spent very little, or no time at all, with their natural fathers.

          Great! Once joint same sex adoption is legalised, the kids of a gay couple will be twice as likely not to go to jail!! What a good thing.

      • millsy 10.2.3
        24 March 2013 at 1:24 am

        Sounds like you think that you want children that gays are abhorrent, filthy and disgusting, and that they should be strung up with piano wire.

        I ask again.

        Should homosexuality be recrminialised?

      • karol 10.2.4
        24 March 2013 at 8:09 am

        Harriet: Married people are healthier and wealthier.They are facts. And promoting that is just civil duty if one is concerned about child welfare and it’s cost to individuals and society.

        Really? And where did you find evidence of these “facts”? Because, form what I see, the facts, supported by research, point in a different direction.

        Gay people, are no less stressed than heterosexual people, and gays who are out are less stressed than others.

        Research shows that married (heterosexual) people are happier….. than single heterosexual people, not that they are happier than same sex couples. In fact, the evidence points in the other direction.

        Same sex couples (and same sex friends) bring up children due to circumstances beyond their control. That will not change. The only reason same sex couples with children are worse of financially, is due to lack of state protections.

        In spite of the discrimination, children raised by same sex couples do as well or better than children raised by opposite sex parents.

        Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[4][23]

        This was the conclusion reached by the Australian Psychological society:

        In keeping with the broader family studies literature, the literature discussed here indicates that the family factors that are important for children’s outcomes and well-being are family processes and the quality of interactions and relationships. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.

        • QoT 10.2.4.1
          24 March 2013 at 9:53 am

          Sadly, karol, I feel your facts and citations will do no good with Harriet. She’s also been all over my post on abortion rights at The Daily Blog – clearly someone whose personal “values” align pretty much 100% with Bob McCoskrie’s.

          • Flashing Light 10.2.4.1.1
            24 March 2013 at 10:52 am

            That’s the great thing about having one little book that tells you how things are all the time, for all time. You don’t need to mess around with stuff like “evidence”. You’ve got it right there in the text – as interpreted and applied by the right people, of course. Who must be men. Who don’t have sex. Unless it’s with little boys.

            Until some smart-alek comes along and ruins it: http://queenjamesbible.com/

            • karol 10.2.4.1.1.1
              24 March 2013 at 5:56 pm

              So I guess when Harriet says “They are facts” we shouldn’t take her literally and that they are more like Biblical “facts” or it’s just being used as a rhetorical device?

          • Draco T Bastard 10.2.4.1.2
            24 March 2013 at 3:10 pm

            …clearly someone whose personal “values” align pretty much 100% with Bob McCoskrie’s.

            And not at all with reality.

      • The Al1en 10.2.5
        24 March 2013 at 8:25 am

        “Gays and their supporters just need to understand that we will decide the values that our children are taught – not enforced upon them by ‘agents of change’ !”

        Family first and associated nut jobs just need to understand that we will decide the values that our children are taught – Not enforced upon them by ‘agents of hatred’.

        • AsleepWhileWalking 10.2.5.1
          24 March 2013 at 11:11 am

          Gays and their supporters just need to understand that we will decide the values that our children are taught

          You and your ilk have no ability to “decide the values that our children a taught”. My children are taught acceptance and tolerance. They are easy to be around and are a living demonstration of my values.

          I’m glad we now have gay stereotypes rammed down our collective conciousness, such as tv shows “The New Normal” and “Modern Family” because eventually it will make it’s way to your children even if you isolate them from TV and indoctrinate them with your teachings. At some point in the future your children or your children’s children will realise just how odd the idea is that the only successful family is male/female nuclear.

      • Flashing Light 10.2.6
        24 March 2013 at 8:36 am

        And besides, I had children for my own sake …

        How completely selfish – treating children as a trophy to fulfill your own personal needs, rather than as a responsibility to the future .

        It’s “me, me, me” types like you, Harriet, that are destroying this nation.

        • Harriet 10.2.6.1
          24 March 2013 at 11:30 am

          “…How completely selfish – treating children as a trophy to fulfill your own personal needs, rather than as a responsibility to the future ….It’s “me, me, me” types like you, Harriet, that are destroying this nation…”

          But gays don’t procreate in their relationships – so how am I any differant?

          Or are you suggesting that people ONLY have children for the benefit of the future – and that they don’t come ‘naturally’?

          • Colonial Viper 10.2.6.1.1
            24 March 2013 at 11:32 am

            You have a lovely and deep fascination for other peoples’ bedroom lives.

            Where did that come from?

          • Flashing Light 10.2.6.1.2
            24 March 2013 at 11:45 am

            Seriously? You are THAT unable to detect sarcasm? How exactly do you function in the world on a day-to-day basis?

            But when you ask “how am I any differant [to gays]?”, I accept your implicit answer. You aren’t. You are just the same as a gay or a lesbian. You win – right?

            As for children being born “naturally”, what does this mean? Does it encompass IVF? Sperm donation (as used by straight or same sex couples)? Surrogacy (as used by straight or same sex couples)? Adoption (intra- or inter-country)? If not, why not? And if so, why are some methods “natural” when used by straight couples, but not by same sex ones?

      • felix 10.2.7
        24 March 2013 at 9:11 am

        “Married people are healthier and wealthier.They are facts. And promoting that is just civil duty if one is concerned about child welfare and it’s cost to individuals and society.”

        Yay, Harriet supports marriage equality after all.

  11. cricklewood 11
    24 March 2013 at 8:13 am

    Hey Millsy, be good if you could ease up on the piano wire call… probably taking it a step to far imho…

  12. felix 12
    24 March 2013 at 10:42 am

    This is why I like David Farrar so much. He’s all about “Fomenting Happy Mischief”.

    • felix 12.1
      24 March 2013 at 10:45 am

      Oh sorry, did I say “Happy mischief”?

      I meant to say “Hatred, bigotry, divisiveness, othering, fear, lies, and ignorance”.

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1
        24 March 2013 at 11:19 am

        Nice set up

      • Flashing Light 12.1.2
        24 March 2013 at 11:33 am

        Now, now … to be fair to David, there is money involved in carrying out these polls. And he’d hardly be true to his principles if he turned down money, would he?

        Actually, and more seriously, I don’t think he could lawfully refuse to conduct such polling for Family First. That would be discriminating on the basis of political views/religious belief. And that would be in breach of the Human Rights Act. So perhaps we shouldn’t shoot the messenger too quickly.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.1
          24 March 2013 at 12:11 pm

          Actually, and more seriously, I don’t think he could lawfully refuse to conduct such polling for Family First.

          You would simply say “with our current heavy work load from existing clients, we wouldn’t be able to complete what you needed in a timely fashion. Try this number instead”.

          • Flashing Light 12.1.2.1.1
            24 March 2013 at 12:28 pm

            Well, if we take the law against discrimination seriously, I’m not sure that is very good advice. After all, how happy would we be if a Christian motelier were to falsely tell an unwed couple with a baby that there is no room in his motel because he thinks their relationship is sinful, but they nevertheless are welcome to bed down in the garage.

          • lprent 12.1.2.1.2
            24 March 2013 at 12:43 pm

            …we wouldn’t be able to complete what you needed in a timely fashion. Try this number instead”.

            Probably how curia got the job.

          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.2.1.3
            24 March 2013 at 3:18 pm

            Personally, I’d prefer that they use honesty. Just tell the client that the questions are unethical, ambiguous and will create no polling accuracy and to get back to them when they have decent questions.

        • Lanthanide 12.1.2.2
          24 March 2013 at 1:52 pm

          “Actually, and more seriously, I don’t think he could lawfully refuse to conduct such polling for Family First. That would be discriminating on the basis of political views/religious belief. And that would be in breach of the Human Rights Act. So perhaps we shouldn’t shoot the messenger too quickly.”

          Wow, you don’t really get this whole discrimination thing, do you?

          Any private company is free to discriminate in any way it chooses. That’s how you have sports clubs that don’t allow women, or working mens clubs that don’t allow people to wear headgear in their premises. There’s nothing illegal about it. In the court of public opinion however, such positions won’t be very popular.

          As a business, you are not somehow *forced* to do work for any customer that comes your way.

          • Flashing Light 12.1.2.2.1
            24 March 2013 at 5:07 pm

            Wow, you don’t really get this whole discrimination thing, do you? Any private company is free to discriminate in any way it chooses.

            While I could respond snarkily, I’ll restrain myself to quoting the relevant section of the Human Rights Act 1993:

            44 Provision of goods and services

            (1) It shall be unlawful for any person who supplies goods, facilities, or services to the public or to any section of the public—

            (a) to refuse or fail on demand to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or

            (b) to treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services than would otherwise be the case,—

            by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

            • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.2.1.1
              24 March 2013 at 5:13 pm

              How many successful prosecutions have there been, is the real question.

              • Flashing Light …
                24 March 2013 at 5:23 pm

                Dunno.

                But I reiterate – if you want to argue “it is wrong for people to refuse to rent rooms to Maori/hire women/let Asians sit in their restaurant”, then you can’t really say “Curia should tell Family First to go stuff their poll, because Family First is a conservative, religious group.”

                Or, rather, you can say it. But you’d be a hypocrite.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  24 March 2013 at 7:39 pm

                  Disagree. Being intolerant of activities designed to spread intolerance is fine, IMO. If you want to claim that’s equivalent to approving of prejudice against women, asians, Maori, gays etc. that’s up to you.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  24 March 2013 at 9:50 pm

                  “Curia should tell Family First to go stuff their poll, because Family First is a conservative, religious group.”

                  But no one’s saying that. They’re saying that Curia should have enough professionalism not to do polls that are “unethical, ambiguous and will create no polling accuracy”. Got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with being accurate.

                  • QoT …
                    24 March 2013 at 10:21 pm

                    Same way it doesn’t breach the Human Rights Act if a builder tells a religious group “sorry, the design you want for your temple is too structurally unstable, even if it’s within the building code.”

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      25 March 2013 at 11:44 am

                      What about “This building provides far too many opportunities for abuse, even if it’s within the building code”?

  13. James 13
    28 March 2013 at 4:52 pm

    H[QoT: don’t accuse authors of lying.

    ETA: too quick there. Expanded warning: Don’t accuse authors of lying when you’re deliberately misrepresenting their posts; don’t demand authors post on things you want them to; don’t use the woefully inaccurate Herald DigiPoll as proof of anything]

    [lprent: Drat. I missed it. ]