Gay marriage

Written By: - Date published: 9:17 am, July 28th, 2012 - 181 comments
Categories: gay rights, human rights - Tags: ,

This week Labour MP Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill was drawn from the ballot, with a first reading reading expected within weeks. According to 3 News the “Gay marriage debate takes off”. I suspect that the Nats are smiling happily to themselves, and hoping for a nasty fight. It would be an excellent distraction from their damning list of incompetence and woes: the moribund economy, the unpopular and bungled asset sales, the record exodus to Australia, their dependence on John “technicality” Banks, and so on.

Wouldn’t it be great if we as a country were mature enough to avoid a demeaning circus, and resolve the issue quickly and without fuss. What possible reason is there to deny a couple marriage? With luck the only dissenting voices will be isolated extremists like Colin Craig:

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig has launched into the same-sex marriage debate with a controversial argument why it’s wrong.

He says same-sex couples who want to marry lack respect for what already exists. He also says it would allow them to adopt, which would be harmful for children.

The Christian party leader is not a Member of Parliament, but waded into the debate on Twitter this morning, saying it wasn’t intelligent to pretend gay relationships were normal.

His series of tweets was followed by a press release which said the minority were busy with their “social engineering” and trying to “meddle with the system”.

Mr Craig told 3 News that people choose to be gay rather than being born that way, many as a result of being abused as children.

Mr Craig is a tool of ignorance, superstition and prejudice. He represents a small minority of New Zealanders, and that’s all that needs to be said about him. In contrast, and true to his usual form, John Key is of no fixed opinion:

The Prime Minister won’t say whether he’ll support a bill allowing same sex marriage beyond its first reading, but says most of his MPs are likely to vote against it. … “Probably my electorate would be opposed to gay marriage. I might just decide to make my own mind up on it.”

Get back to us when you’ve run your focus groups John. With any luck they’ll tell you to do the decent thing, and you’ll throw your political influence behind supporting gay marriage. That way you can be remembered as a PM who got at least one thing right.

181 comments on “Gay marriage ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tigger 1
    28 July 2012 at 10:20 am

    So why the hell did you turn up to all this Big Gay Outs, John? Oh yeah, pandering, lying, giving the appearance of support. Tosser.

    • gobsmacked 1.1
      28 July 2012 at 3:04 pm

      So why the hell did you turn up to all this Big Gay Outs, John?

      Yeah, that’s going to cause him real trouble, if the bill hasn’t been passed by the end of the year. There’s no way he’ll do the happy photo-op if he’s still on the fence (or even opposed).

      So, another reason for National to help this one along, get it out of the way ASAP.

    • mike e 1.2
      29 July 2012 at 4:29 pm

      Shonkey turned up because he is a buysexual
      Vote buying
      The cat walk
      The RWC handshake
      Dogwhistle or is that cat

  2. Lanthanide 2
    28 July 2012 at 10:27 am

    Hey Mr Craig, I didn’t “choose” to be gay and I wasn’t abused as a child.

    His stance doesn’t make sense anyway: many people “choose” to be gay because they suffered abuse as a child?

    • felix 2.1
      28 July 2012 at 4:42 pm

      Of course it doesn’t make sense. Look at the people he’s trying to “make sense” to.

    • Frank Macskasy 2.2
      29 July 2012 at 10:10 pm

      Colin Craig said something verrry interesting about “choosing to be gay”, that makes me wonder if the CP leader has something he wants to “get of his chest”,

      ” He was so sure that homosexuality was a choice, he bet his own sexuality on it.

      “Do you think you could choose to be gay if that is the case?,” he was asked.

      “Sure. Sure I could,” he responded.

      “You could choose to be gay?,” he was asked again.

      “Yea, if I wanted to,’ he replied. “

      See: http://www.3news.co.nz/Colin-Craig-Gay-parents-not-good-role-models/tabid/1607/articleID/262919/Default.aspx

      • Populuxe1 2.2.1
        29 July 2012 at 11:00 pm

        If he wants to prove that, I will offer myself as a sacrifice – but only under clinical trial conditions and with professional observers present. And then I want to bleach my brain.

        • felix 2.2.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 11:19 pm

          “only under clinical trial conditions and with professional observers present.”

          Pretty specific, Pop. But that’s ok, we all got a freaky side.

          • Populuxe1 2.2.1.1.1
            30 July 2012 at 12:10 am

            This is science, Felix. And if it turns out he can’t “choose” to be gay, we will go on to phase two – which I like to fondly call “Clockwork Orange” time.

      • mike e 2.2.2
        29 July 2012 at 11:11 pm

        Frank it sounds like he is really struggling to come out of the closet

  3. prism 3
    28 July 2012 at 10:35 am

    Gay married couples can only make the world a better place and strengthen society. Marriage says commitment, it says bonding between people, it says support and affection, and spells out legal responsibilities and sharing. Pity that The Dragon Tattoo writer and his partner didn’t marry. She in what I thought would be a modern Scandinavian country has no standing when it comes to his estate. This has happened to so many living togethers, pushed out by family and not even involved in their loved one’s funeral.

    And marriage is respected, more than a civil union. There was a golf tournament for married couples in Nelson I think, and a great upset when couples who weren’t married just living together were banned. Some people like the celebration of a marriage ceremony so much they go through it a number of times with different partners, sometimes renewing vows with the same partner. Devotion to each other isn’t only found between men and women – men and men, women and women can feel this bond too, marriage gives the real status to stable relationships that they deserve.

    The attitude that marriage is sacred, only between men and women and never shall it be otherwise doesn’t look at the quality of marriages after the ceremonials are over. But once you are married, there are ways to diminish that state such as beating up your wife your children or even your husband. And some women marry serially for the half split of goodies given out in divorce settlements. Is that what they got married for? Are they turning marriage into a business to enrich themselves? Like many modern churches that act as businesses but use the sacred mantle as a wealth making tax avoidance scheme?

  4. BM 4
    28 July 2012 at 10:49 am

    Why didn’t Labour push for gay marriage when they were in charge? the only reason I can think of is that they didn’t want to upset all the Catholics who vote Labour.

    • prism 4.1
      28 July 2012 at 11:06 am

      BM Irrelevant.

      • BM 4.1.1
        28 July 2012 at 11:17 am

        Not really, as the same applies to National.

        There’s quite a large religious block that votes National, are they ready for Gay marriage, I’m not sure.

    • Blue 4.2
      28 July 2012 at 11:26 am

      Labour’s Civil Unions bill was a closely fought one, BM. It passed 65 to 55 on a conscience vote.

      If it had been gay marriage Labour was proposing, I would say the bill wouldn’t have passed back then.

      The public mood has changed since 2004, and I think a gay marriage bill would pass now. So many countries around the world are now passing or looking at passing legislation on this.

      It should be very interesting to see how the vote goes this time. Labour, the Progressives and the Greens largely got Civil Unions over the line, along with half of Act and a few conscience votes in favour from parties that mostly opposed it.

      • Pete George 4.2.1
        28 July 2012 at 1:51 pm

        Blue’s right, Labour got through what was deemed possible at the time.

        The public has changed a lot since then and seems ready for full equal marriage rights rather than a stepping stone second class status. Civil unions being in place already makes the change to equal status much easier.

    • Murray Olsen 4.3
      28 July 2012 at 10:28 pm

      Because Labour were cowards. It’s a long time since they’ve done anything that took real political courage.

      • Populuxe1 4.3.1
        29 July 2012 at 12:19 am

        Um, no – it was because Labour realised you can’t change the world overnight and something like this requires baby steps.

  5. lostinsuburbia 5
    28 July 2012 at 10:56 am

    Colin Craig can go hang out with Louis Crimp, I’m sure they are singing from the same hymn sheet on this issue.

    I didn’t choose to be gay, in fact life would be a lot easier if I wasnt. But I am and is it so wrong to expect the same level of rights under the law? We’re not asking for special treatment, we just want to be treated the same as everyone else.

    • marsman 5.1
      28 July 2012 at 3:16 pm

      I well remember Fran Wilde’s Homosexual Law Reform Bill and the nasty, ignorant, mainly male homophobes who travelled the country preaching ‘They will be into our twelve year olds’ which was a watershed for us gay men and lesbians who had pushed our way into their venues because we all stood up and ROARED.

      Personally I don’t give a rat’s arse whether people of whatever mix get married. It’s never been my desire to be married but have had a number of loving and satisfying long ‘gay relationships’.
      However if the likes of Colin Craig get on their hindlegs and do a tour of hate-mongering homophobia I will go out and confront them and ROAR, and I’m positive I will not be the only one.

  6. tracey 6
    28 July 2012 at 11:40 am

    The stupid thing is straight people dont ” respect the sanctity of marriage” given the high divorce and de facto rates. Times have changed. The bible has said all kinds of things that are no longer acceptable.

    • lostinsuburbia 6.1
      28 July 2012 at 12:36 pm

      I think this video from the West Wing sums it up

    • Dr Terry 6.2
      28 July 2012 at 1:05 pm

      The Bible has always said things that are non-acceptable. The Bible’s main theme is Love, so for heaven’s sake allow people who love, to marry, and lay aside prejudices that lack love.

    • weka 6.3
      28 July 2012 at 2:51 pm

      It’s not just about the bible though, it’s also homophobia.

      • mike e 6.3.1
        29 July 2012 at 4:43 pm

        Homophobia and racism are mental disorders
        Insecurity about ones own race or sexuality.
        Low educational achievement and self esteem are common amongst this grouping .
        When someone is worried about what other people do .
        Is usually a sign they are a latent homosexual reading the Kinsey report would be a good start for these people.
        Fundamentalist autocratic types who promote homophobia , research has shown this group are twice as likely to be paedophiles a claim they often make about Gay people who research has shown are no more likely than the average person.
        The same sort of disgusting rhetoric was used by the KKK to say that all black men were rapists.
        Nothing has changed in redneck country.
        Graeme Capill was the last politician to promote this redneck BS!

  7. KJT 7
    28 July 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Anyone who still thinks that Politicians are a better protector of minority rights, than democracy, please take note.

  8. bad12 8
    28 July 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Gay marriage is one hell of a big yawn of a subject, my rule of thumb is that what adults choose to get up to in their private lives is their bizz SO LONG AS it aint hurting anyone,

    Here in lies my question tho,is gay marriage as such being used as the back door to allow same sex couples the right of adoption,

    On a personal level i have no real quantifiable objection to such adoption being legal, BUT, i aint ever likely in my advanced state to be the subject in the middle of a same sex adoption, and,while i have seen no evidence of harm caused to such children involved in such adoptions some thought needs be expended in that area on their behalf…

    • Tigger 8.1
      28 July 2012 at 12:50 pm

      Actually this is a yawner too. Good parents are good parents, sexuality does not matter. This will be used as a wolf whistle against gay marriage. Think of the children! Funnily enough, those Nats who do this are also slashing welfare and voting down paid parental leave.

      • bad12 8.1.1
        28 July 2012 at 1:04 pm

        That is hardly an answer, i for one can see a problem for kids adopted into such a relationship at the point where such children come to a realization that their parental configuration is not the ‘norm’ of their peers,

        As i have already said, same sex couples being married has to be one of the biggest YAWNIES issues of our time, the fact that we are having this discussion at all shows just how slow and primitive the race,and, the political process is,

        As a boring old ‘hetero’ i have no interest in the configurations within the institution of marriage and as an individual with a ‘free’ mind my usual thoughts on the issue of marriage is that most of it’s advocates belong in one,an institution that is,

        However, IF the legalization of same sex marriage is also the allowance of those in same sex marriages the ‘right’ of adoption then i feel that changes the discussion entirely…

    • prism 8.2
      28 July 2012 at 12:52 pm

      bad12 8
      One thing at a time. Let’s look at gay marriage as a single entity and anything else be left to later. It will be on its own in reality a small step for the world and one big step for mankind and womankind.

    • weka 8.3
      28 July 2012 at 3:00 pm

      I would have thought it was a given that once gay marriage is legal, then adoption by married gay couples would follow. AFAIK, single gay people can already adopt (don’t know how easy it is). Not sure what legislation prevents gay couples from adopting now.
       
      The idea that kids would be damaged by being raised by gay parents if pretty ridiculous. Unless you are also worried about all those gay kids being raised by straight parents, because let’s face it, this is what it comes down to – that the sexuality of the parent will somehow taint the child and oh how terrible to have more gay kids in the world.

  9. kiwi_prometheus 9
    28 July 2012 at 1:18 pm

    lostinsuburbia -> “I think this video from the West Wing sums it up”

    A botoxed, pancake make up, yankee celeb actor, from the TV sitcom wasteland, reading a teleprompter scripted pro gay marriage tirade?

    Sums it up.

    • lostinsuburbia 9.1
      28 July 2012 at 8:04 pm

      No sums out that the bible is a book written in ancient times that is full of ridiculous rulings. Sure there are some good themes in it about respecting other people etc but it must be placed in context as a book written by ancient people who were no where as advanced as our society (their belief in a creation myth, the flooding of the entire world, and the turning of a woman into a pillar of salt)

      • Populuxe1 9.1.1
        29 July 2012 at 12:40 am

        Actually there really isn’t much on homosexuality in the Bible. The sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality according to Ezekiel 16:49, and these days I doubt we’d condone handing over one’s daughters to be raped instead. Leviticus 18 and 20 are hard to take seriously as Leviticus also advocates things like putting to death people who wear mixed fibres and cut their hair, and in any case looking at the original it seems pretty clear the reference was to the sacred male prostitutes of the Canaanite goddess Shapash who occupied parts of the temple. The other references are Paul, but he hates all sex and women particularly, advocating for total celibacy for everyone.
        Jesus said be nice to other people and pay your taxes. He never said anything about homosexuality – and he was very fond of the beardless apostle John. Also there is David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi, but you never hear much about that when the Fundies get going.

  10. kiwi_prometheus 10
    28 July 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Marriage is between a man and a women. Only they can procreate. That deserves special status.

    • bad12 10.1
      28 July 2012 at 1:32 pm

      Laugh, definitely, my modernist hetero view is that ‘they’ need an Institution…

      • kiwi_prometheus 10.1.1
        28 July 2012 at 2:16 pm

        No they already have one, marriage. Why don’t the pro ‘gay marriage’ advocates get their own one instead of trying to take marriage?

        • Pete George 10.1.1.1
          28 July 2012 at 2:28 pm

          No one is trying to “take marriage”.

          Those who believe that marriage has religious connections won’t be affected.
          Those who believe that marriage should involve procreating won’t be affected.
          Those who get married for love and partnership won’t be affected.
          Those who are in arranged marriages won’t be affected.
          Those who arev in mariages of convenience won’t be affected.
          Those who married for money won’t be affected.
          Those who can get married for many other reasons won’t be affected.

          All it does is make marriage an equal option for some people that are currently excluded.

          • kiwi_prometheus 10.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2012 at 2:36 pm

            Excluded because they don’t qualify.

            It’s between a man and a woman. Only they procreate, it is central to the continuation of the human species.

            Change that definition and it is no longer marriage.

            So you are ‘taking’ marriage and turning it into something else.

            • Pascal's bookie 10.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2012 at 2:48 pm

              Point me to where it talks about procreation in the Marriage Act.

            • weka 10.1.1.1.1.2
              28 July 2012 at 3:04 pm

              Lesbian women can still procreate. And if you say they need a man, then what about a couple where he is infertile, and they need donor sperm? Should they be denied marriage too, because they can’t procreate on their own?

            • Clashman 10.1.1.1.1.3
              28 July 2012 at 3:29 pm

              What about married people who have chosen not to procreate? I know of several who can have children but have chosen not to. Should they have there marriage annulled?

            • lostinsuburbia 10.1.1.1.1.4
              28 July 2012 at 8:06 pm

              Guess we better start genetic testing of all couples to make sure they are compatible.

            • mike e 10.1.1.1.1.5
              29 July 2012 at 5:12 pm

              kp the only thing you can procreate is bigotry!
              So all the hetro couples who have children who neglect and abuse their children and others ie Capill and yourself included the spiritually deluded.
              Gay couples have lower rate of child abuse than you and your cohorts its time you started
              protesting against your own kind then people may have some respect for you
              you are obviously a religious nutter.
              Religion which has an even murkier history on child abuse of all kinds yuk! your just a bunch of zealous bigoted hypocrites clean up your own morals before you even try with others that are superior to yours.

        • bad12 10.1.1.2
          28 July 2012 at 4:03 pm

          ahh, my point was far too oblique for you, try an institution where they read your mind…

    • Pete George 10.2
      28 July 2012 at 1:59 pm

      The special status of successful procreation is having children. Marriage isn’t necessaary for that. Many people get married knowing they will never have children in the marriage. Including me.

      Those that want an extra special status can create their own.

      • kiwi_prometheus 10.2.1
        28 July 2012 at 2:18 pm

        So what if a few heterosexual married don’t have kids, that doesn’t change the principle.

        All you got there is some cold philosophical technicality.

        • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1.1
          28 July 2012 at 2:50 pm

          Your principle is that gays cannot marry, because they cannot procreate.

          Therfore any couple that cannot procreate cannot marry.

          If you want to amend the Marriage Act so that infertile couples cannot marry, have at it. But at the moment people who cannot procreate can in fact marry.

        • QoT 10.2.1.2
          28 July 2012 at 3:43 pm

          k_p, do you realise that transgendered people whose gender has been legally changed can marry someone of the opposite sex? Right now? Even though they may completely lack any biological ability to ever have kids, or at least to have kids with their cissexual partner?

          (I ask because one of my most treasured memories is of Georgina Beyer on Eye to Eye breaking this news to Brian Tamaki. Poor little man, he had no idea the big scary transgender woman had basic human rights.)

    • Draco T Bastard 10.3
      28 July 2012 at 1:59 pm

      Ah, a fuckwit spouting lies and bigotry.

      Plenty of gay people out there with children.

      • kiwi_prometheus 10.3.1
        28 July 2012 at 2:22 pm

        Yeah from their.previous marriage to the opposite sex.

        Or a Nigerian gayby bought off the internet. LOL

        Again, marriage is between a man and a woman. Only they can procreate.

        • McFlock 10.3.1.1
          28 July 2012 at 2:52 pm

          Really?
          That’s in the Marriage Act “man and woman, because only they can procreate”? 
               
           Methinks you’re confusing bible-thumping with secular law. 

          • infused 10.3.1.1.1
            28 July 2012 at 4:11 pm

            No, as defined: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

            You’re actually changing the meaning of marriage.

            • millsy 10.3.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2012 at 4:14 pm

              didnt know you were a god bother as well infused…

            • McFlock 10.3.1.1.1.2
              28 July 2012 at 4:25 pm

              Words can’t change meanings, or acquire additional meanings?
                   
              The gay divorcee thought same-sex marriage was terrific. 

        • millsy 10.3.1.2
          28 July 2012 at 3:19 pm

          So what about those married couples who choose not to have children?

        • Draco T Bastard 10.3.1.3
          28 July 2012 at 4:07 pm

          Not always. Gay people are still fertile and may get together with another gay couple to have children. That gives the children four or more loving parents.

          Your ignorance and hate is shining through for all to see.

          BTW:

          Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[75] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[76]

          While it is a relatively new practice to grant same-sex couples the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly granted to mixed-sex couples, there is some history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[77] It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[77] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.

          Ancient Greece and Rome – the birthplaces of modern Western culture.

          • kiwi_prometheus 10.3.1.3.1
            28 July 2012 at 4:48 pm

            These are all outlier examples again. So what.

            We all know that marriage is between a man and woman. It is only that combination that makes procreation possible. That’s what makes marriage so important and special.

            Sure a few couples choose careers over children, or can’t for health reasons etc. A few exceptions don’t change the rule.

            Ditto for adoption, surrogacy or buying a Nigerian gayby on eBay.

            What’s with this obsession with marriage by gays who want in or to get even – “It’s MY right! It’s MY right!”?

            Marriage is between a man and woman. Changing that in anyway means it is not marriage anymore no matter what you want to pretend.

            • felix 10.3.1.3.1.1
              28 July 2012 at 5:00 pm

              I think you’ll find that procreation happens or not, entirely regardless of marriage.

              The causal link is between fucking and procreation, not marriage and procreation, and the human body simply doesn’t give a flying one what you think about it kp.

              • kiwi_prometheus …
                28 July 2012 at 5:40 pm

                Hi felix! wondered when you were going to rock on up.

                Who was talking about a causal link?

                Flying off at a tangent again, but then manhaters tend to do that.

                • felix …
                  28 July 2012 at 6:54 pm

                  “Who was talking about a causal link?”

                  I was, see above.

                  You reckon marriage is for procreation and that without the ability to procreate it can’t be marriage. Yes?

                  Well I don’t think there’s ever been a recorded instance of a marriage resulting in procreation. Ever. And it would be nothing short of a miracle if it ever occurred, which it won’t, because that’s not where babies come from.

                  All the evidence points to fucking, which as I’m sure you know has nothing to do with marriage.

            • Draco T Bastard 10.3.1.3.1.2
              28 July 2012 at 7:01 pm

              It doesn’t matter if they’re outliers. It’s their right to have the state recognise their relationship as they see it.

              We all know that marriage is between a man and woman.

              The majority of people in this country happen to disagree with you.

              Changing that in anyway means it is not marriage anymore no matter what you want to pretend.

              Wrong. Marriage, just like all cultural rules, is a social construct and the society as a whole and not the bigots within it get to define it however they like.

            • Populuxe1 10.3.1.3.1.3
              29 July 2012 at 5:55 pm

              People seem to have been managing to have children without getting married since there were first people.

    • gobsmacked 10.4
      28 July 2012 at 2:04 pm

      Marriage is between a man and a women. Only they can procreate.

      Looking forward to a lot more of this over the coming months. Anthony R0bins is wrong – it’s not a useful distraction for the Nats, it’s a potential wedge. (That’s not the reason I support Louisa’s bill … it’s the right thing to do, period. But the divisions on the Right will be an enjoyable by-product).

      Watch as various talkback Tories successfully alienate “ordinary New Zealanders”, precisely by assuming they are the ordinary (i.e. normal) ones. Oblivious to the realities of 2012, they assume that their narrow world is the real one.

      As this worldview is based on belief, not evidence or logic, it is impervious to reason. No point trying to reason with them, just let them froth and lose. “Give ’em enough rope”, etc.

      John Key is amoral, but he’s not stupid. He won’t be siding with the bigots – because of polls, not principles. This bill will pass, Colin Craig (and maybe Winston) will benefit, and – much sooner than he wanted – Key will be under pressure to start “ruling in or out” (so will Shearer, and the answer’s obvious, though Labour’s so-called strategists are dumb enough to get it wrong).

      Interesting times.

      • Pascal's bookie 10.4.1
        28 July 2012 at 2:53 pm

        Agree. There will be all sorts of discussions about ‘bottom lines’ for coalition talks and the conservatives will be in full poo flinging flight dragging up all sorts of questions the rest of the country has already settled an opinion on.

      • bad12 10.4.2
        28 July 2012 at 4:23 pm

        Makes me wonder tho, the Roy Morgan Poll for the first time ever decides to include the Conservatives in its polling allowing them 3% of electoral support in it’s polling,

        The same week as the Lousia Wall legislation is pulled from the ballot,

        We need to understand one thing here when we look at the ‘politics’ involved and that is with the present numbers, John(the convicted)Banks, the ‘Hairdo’ from Ohariu + the Poodles National are for all money gone in 2014,

        Don’t think for a moment that Slippery,Captain Panic Pants and the rest of the National Party strategists are just going to let themselves be brushed aside by the electorate,

        National need another coalition Party that will deliver them more than 1 seat at the next election, and, should the Conservatives gain the oxygen necessary to have National think they can be assured of that 3% of electoral support National will gift the Conservative Party leader a safe National seat just as they gifted the flake Banks Epsom,

        Therein lies the political danger inherent in Lousia Wall’s legislation, my thoughts,at the risk of getting screeched at is that The Left should ensure that either Labour or the Greens (preferably both),have this legislation as part of their policy leading into 2014 and starve the moral/religious right of any oxygen on the issue by damping down the debate/expectations of the current legislation…

        • gobsmacked 10.4.2.1
          28 July 2012 at 5:04 pm

          @Bad12

          Of course you’re right, the Nats will need partners, and they may accommodate Craig one way or another.

          But I think that will prove more trouble than it’s worth. There will be all kinds of matters arising … do they pick Craig over Winston, do they destroy ACT, do they lose more swing voters than they pick up on the Right, do they treat voters in Rodney or somewhere else the same way they treat voters in Epsom, does Key have another “cup of tea” with a leader who (by that time) will have called Key the Devil for his vote on Satan’s Sodomy, etc, etc …

          National = Brand Key. For that “nice” brand, hugging a loose unit like Craig is much more dangerous than hugging Banks the reliable, true blue Nat.

          The essential point about religious zealots like Craig (plus Tamaki et al) is that they don’t do grubby compromise. Somebody like Hide or Peters or Banks or Dunne could make all kinds of noise, but ultimately they’re politicians first … they know how far to push their luck. Colin Craig is doing God’s work. And, er … God only knows where that can lead.

          • bad12 10.4.2.1.1
            28 July 2012 at 7:29 pm

            I find your last paragraph a wee bit naive, the religious right would sell their souls to the devil himself,(nah scratch that insert herself, can’t be being sexist here can i),to (a)get seats in the Parliament,and (b),gain a little lee-way from National to impose some of ‘their’ morals upon us all,

            If the Conservatives cannot gain an electorate on their own National will happily gift them a safe National seat so long as there is a good chance of the Conservatives bringing in 1 or 2 more MPs on top of the gifted seat,

            Roy Morgan didn’t just start polling the Conservative vote for the first time this week for the sheer hell of it, Roy either smelt something in the wind, or, Roy is an actual part of the plan to give the Conservative Party electoral oxygen,

            I will take it as written for now that it was pure coincidence that Roy Morgan started polling the Conservatives at this point in the electoral cycle AND the Clerk of the House just happened to pull Lousia Wall’s bill outta the draft at the same time, i have no evidence that said Clerk has acted with some dishonest deliberation in putting this particular legislation befor the House at this particular time so i will not accuse Him of deliberately having done so…

            • gobsmacked 10.4.2.1.1.1
              28 July 2012 at 8:44 pm

              Last 2 paras are silly.

              First para … look at the record. Christian Coalition 1996, Destiny/Family, failed launch of Christian party in Clark’s third term (Copeland, Tamaki etc – they fought in public and killed themselves before they were born), Kiwi Party failing dismally, Craig killing Banks in Auckland mayoralty, etc.

              You are thinking pragmatically, but you need to try and see it through eyes of a True Believer. They are against Sin. Compromise is Sin. Why do churches have schisms every five minutes?

              Second para … already covered. The losses outweigh the gains. Gifting a seat means embracing Craig. Another Cup of Tea. The last one almost lost the unloseable election.

              David Farrar is adamantly opposed to Colin Craig. He sees where this would go. Key and Joyce do too. Losses major, gains minor. Basic electoral maths.

              • bad12 …
                29 July 2012 at 12:46 am

                Losses major,gains minor??? if as i suppose National are at this point in the electoral cycle are planning on gifting The Conservatives a seat your failure to see the elephant in the room is both laughable and a sheer tragedy,(no wonder the left spends so much of its time out of Government with thinking like yours),

                ACT if you havn’t noticed, was well f**ked befor the 2011 election and we all knew that even with the insertion of Banks as the ACT candidate who spent the election chanting john key john key john key like a love struck school girl ACT as a Party had not even the chance of a dead cats bounce in 2011…

            • Pascal's bookie 10.4.2.1.1.2
              28 July 2012 at 10:15 pm

              Agree with gobsmacked.

              (This ended up getting way long, so there’s a tl;dr version down the bottom, feel free to scroll)

              There’s a lot of talk about how the Cons could provide National with it’s partner, and it’s a really superficial way of understanding MMP. It misses.

              What counts is the blocks right? The potential govts. Shuffling votes within those blocks doesn’t affect the outcome as the block is still getting the same number of votes. But what it does affect is the shape of the government that block will form. And that’s what can really shift the middle voters. It’s that secondary effect that is the crucial one, because it determines which block grows.

              So, if the cons start growing where do their votes come from?

              Labour : They’ll get a few, no doubt. But not many I think. Most of the voters that will shift over this will have already shifted. But there will be some.

              Greens None worth mentioning. The Greens and the Cons are just natural enemies, culturally. The urban liberal story about the greens is just true fact.

              Mana Could lose some, but I think not many. And this won’t affect the size of the left block unless Mana gets enough votes for a second MP in any case.

              National This will obviously be where most of the Cons votes have to come from.

              So what happens next, if the Cons are growing?

              National is still at historic highs. Key hoovered up an enormous amount of votes from people that had voted Labour. Why did they vote for Key, but not for Brash?

              What are those people going to think about a right wing block government with the Conservatives having a say?

              There is no sign that those people who voted against Brash would be keen on that. It was the Brethren crap that killed Brash.

              So I think that’s where we see people drifting from National to Labour, and some to the Greens. These will be urban liberals, (and I don’t necessarily think they’ll all be in the cities, read ‘urban’ as stereotype)

              —————
              tl;drSo the basic math comes down to something like:

              Do the Conservatives pick up more votes from the left block, than National loses from liberals?

              The numbers don’t have to be huge for it to be a bad news story for the tory. That’s why they are freaking out.

              Check out the kiwiblog threads on this. It’s all righties fighting righties, and it’s viscious. I think that so far at least, it looks like the right is going to get wedged on this one.

              It’s one of the rareish times when the right thing to do, is also the politically winning thing to do.

              • bad12 …
                29 July 2012 at 1:03 am

                there is a basic flaw in all of the elongated rant that you have put up as a reply to my previous comments,

                The best descriptive that can be applied fairly to this basic flaw in the whole of your comment is that it is utter BULLSHIT,

                it is obvious that you have not even checked the FACTS to ascertain what % of the Party vote The Conservative Party gained in the 2011 election,

                The Conservative Party gained 2.65% of the Party vote in the 2011 election,and as i said to gobsmacked above in my reply to him/her, your failure to see the elephant in the room is both laughable and a tragedy,(if your any gauge of the left’s intellect small wonder said left spends so much time in opposition),

                The fact that you have not even bothered to check the FACTS of what % of the Party vote the Conservatives gained in that 2011 election makes your whole rant as something made up inside your mind and as you have failed to see that 2011 % you will further not know that had the Slippery National Government gifted the Conservative Party Leader a safe National Party seat then the Conservatives would in fact have had 4 seats in the current Parliament,

                To gain the vote of those 4 seats National would have had to lose one of its electorates in the gifting of that seat to the Conservatives but would have gained another 3 support votes in the house as well as the vote of that gifted to the Conservatives,

                Lucky us, National took a gamble on getting a dead cats bounce out of the corpse of the ACT Party and chose not to back the ‘new’ kid on the block the Conservatives,

                I doubt for one moment that National in 2014 will ignore the Conservatives,the opposite will be true, faced with losing the 2014 election National will be falling all over itself to gift the Conservative Party Leader a safe electoral seat…

                • gobsmacked …
                  29 July 2012 at 8:39 am

                  @bad12

                  PB and I have both answered this at length, so there’s not much point going on. You choose to believe that people who take the trouble to comment in great detail, to explain the argument, aren’t even aware of last year’s results. Perhaps you could read it all again, slowly.

                  Ultimately your point is …

                  National will be falling all over itself to gift the Conservative Party Leader a safe electoral seat

                  And both PB and I have explained what that would mean. Can’t be bothered to do it yet again, you either understand or you don’t.

                  • bad12 …
                    29 July 2012 at 10:53 am

                    Your basic electoral math are marked an F for failed…

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      29 July 2012 at 11:06 am

                      Well I’ll take that under advisement. But seeing you seem to think Roy Morgan decided to start polling conservative voters, whatever that means (do you think they have some in a box?), I’ll be honest and say that I won’t be giving it too much weight.

                    • bad12 …
                      29 July 2012 at 11:37 am

                      PB, i am not sure if you are being deliberately abstruse but it is pretty simple to understand that ”for the first time Roy Morgan has decided to include the Conservative Party in it’s published poll”,

                      In other words Roy Morgan has never had a % for the Conservatives in any of it’s published polls and the fact that i have to explain this to you makes me feel as if i address a five year old,

                      2.65% was the Conservatives share of the party vote at the 2011 election so i am assuming that is where Roy Morgan is taking it’s present level of 3% for the Conservatives in it’s latest poll,

                      There is of course another reason that the Conservative Party is included in the latest Roy Morgan at that level and that is that they are actually polling at that 3% as shown in the Roy Morgan poll,

                      The reason why Roy Morgan has belatedly included the Conservative Party in it’s published poll???,

                      My take on this,as per the rumors of National’s internal polling having shown a collapse of support both for the Party, and, for the first time a similar collapse of support for Slippery the Prime Minister not reflected in the mainstream polls, National have now realized that they need the Conservatives to gain a 3rd term in 2014 and Roy Morgan’s belated inclusion of the Conservatives in it’s polling is simply to give publicity, therefor electoral oxygen to that Party…

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      29 July 2012 at 11:53 am

                      The reason they are included in the published poll is probably that this is the first time they’ve shown up in the results of the poll.

                      Take a look at previous results for “others” that is where they were recorded previously along with the Alliance and legalise pot and all the others.

                      The election result has nothing to do with a poll, so I’m not sure of your point there.

                      But the fact remains. they are now showing up in polls, and national’s on line mouth pieces are freaking out about it and their comment sections are full of righties arguing with each other and calling each other names.

                      If national gifts the Cons a seat, if they cut a deal in the campaign, what do you think will happen next?

                      That’s what you haven’t addressed. You seem to think that that wouldn’t affect National’s vote. Look at how people, including the media, reacted to the Banks deal.

                      I think the public’s appetite for thsoe shennanagins has faded for starters, and their appetite for a deal with the Cons will be even less.

                    • bad12 …
                      29 July 2012 at 12:14 pm

                      ”Look at how people reacted to the Banks deal”, (deliberately forgetting the media reaction as that reaction was more to do with beating up National over the Ambrose taping of the conversation),

                      Gosh when i LOOK at what happened, i see National +Banks+’the Hairdo’ which is a Government,

                      Had National also gifted the Conservative Party a safe electoral seat in 2011 the result would have been National+Banks+’the Hairdo’+3 more for a majority not requiring the Maori Party,

                      I wonder what YOU see when you LOOK at what happened at the 2011 election…

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      29 July 2012 at 12:46 pm

                      Yeah, I deliberately forgot about the media reaction, which is why I specifically said to bear it in mind. 🙄

                      You still haven’t addressed the point of how such a deal would affect swing voters. Your assumption is that it wouldn’t affect them at all. That’s the only way your simplistic adding up of the votes they got *without such a deal* makes sense.

                      The fact of a deal being in place, will influnce voters. Thta’s why they make the fucking deals. they weigh the pros and cons, and do what works.

                      Now why do you think they didn’t do a deal with the zcons last time B12? Riddle me that one. They were pollling better than ACT, so why didn’t they cut them in if it was such an obvious move? And why are they attacking them no? And why are the right wing comment threads all slagging each other off?

                      Could it be that internal polling tells them how swing voters would view such a deal? would that explain the observable facts?

                    • bad12 …
                      29 July 2012 at 1:02 pm

                      Can you show me a link to this ”better polling” by the Conservatives leading up to the 2011 election???

                      The right wing blog sites??? why the hell would i bother to read such rubbish, the meaningless gibberish fermented by the Farrer’s and blubber-boys of this world are best left for them to read,

                      Small sects of the right arguing are meaningless, they all will still be voting right,

                      The fact that a deal was in place over Epsom only goes to show that right wing voters will do as they are told by the hierarchy,

                      You are now dancing ever faster on the head of a pin making the discussion meaningless in terms of my original intent in mentioning the first inclusion of the Conservatives in a Roy Morgan poll,

                      The proof of the pudding will be in the lead up to the 2014 election where i fully expect the Slippery National Government to do a deal with the Colin Craig Conservatives,

                      My equation vis a vis such a deal= deal done chance of National 3rd term, deal not done bye bye National in 2014…

                    • gobsmacked …
                      29 July 2012 at 1:23 pm

                      @B12

                      The fact that a deal was in place over Epsom only goes to show that right wing voters will do as they are told by the hierarchy

                      The deal in Epsom began in 2005, and evolved over three elections. The message in the last two elections was “Vote for me, get Key”. By 2011 it was totally, almost absurdly, loyal to Key. Banks talked about little else.

                      Do you think Craig will send the same loyal message (in Rodney, or any other electorate)?

                      Do you think Colin Craig will (simultaneously, somehow) pick up votes by slagging off Key?

                      Do you think National will embrace Craig, or attack him? Or … both?

                      Let’s assume I’m a fool. If you know National’s strategy, could you please explain it, by answering these questions?

                    • bad12 …
                      29 July 2012 at 2:14 pm

                      Yes i assumed i was addressing a fool at the point of you first commenting on what i was saying,

                      As nothing you have said further to that first comment has served to disabuse me of the original assumption there is little point in further discussion within this post on the issue vis a vis the Conservatives, their polling, and the coincidence of the Lousia Wall Legislation being pulled form the ballot as such will only serve to further drag the discussion away from it’s original intention,

                      I am sure the issue will arise for further discussion at some other point in time…

                    • gobsmacked …
                      29 July 2012 at 2:42 pm

                      That first comment raised half a dozen questions, none of which you have addressed. Subsequently both PB and I have raised numerous further points, and you’ve ignored them too. Which is kind of rude, frankly.

                      At least your last sentence made sense.

      • Populuxe1 10.4.3
        29 July 2012 at 5:57 pm

        To quote Dorothy Parker, “Heterosexuality isn’t normal, it’s just common.”

      • Populuxe1 10.4.4
        29 July 2012 at 11:05 pm

        Gosh darn it and tarnation! Animals procreate all the time – we’d better start pairing off and marrying up our livestock. While we’re at it, we should probably make them wear clothes too – what if one of our ladyfolk should accidentally clap eyes on a nekkid animal?

    • marsman 10.5
      28 July 2012 at 3:24 pm

      @ kiwi_prometheus. Yawn.

    • QoT 10.6
      28 July 2012 at 3:40 pm

      So you would also advocate that the State forcibly divorce couples who choose or are forced to remain childless?

      I mean, if procreation’s your thing, surely infertile people don’t deserve to sneak in to your speshul liddle institution.

      • lostinsuburbia 10.6.1
        28 July 2012 at 8:19 pm

        Don’t forget the medals for women who lots of kids (within wedlock of course!). There was a central European country in the 1930s that use to do it.

    • Daveosaurus 10.7
      28 July 2012 at 5:51 pm

      Yes, because the world is grossly underpopulated and the entire human species is in danger of falling below the numbers essential for its continued survival.

      …

      Oh wait….

    • Carol 10.8
      28 July 2012 at 8:13 pm

      And what the world needs now is everyone procreating as much as possible. 🙄

      Or, we could encourage people to procreate less, and everyone to provide as much nurturing and care to children as possible.

    • Populuxe1 10.9
      29 July 2012 at 12:41 am

      Except the ones with fertility problems and older couples, but wait… They’re allowed to get married…

    • mike e 10.10
      29 July 2012 at 4:53 pm

      kp rev Graham Capill would agree with you

  11. Dr Terry 11
    28 July 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Christian Colin Craig asserts that we must “never change what already exists” Now were this true, today’s society would precede the dark ages. We are always changing things that already exist; Craig’s own Master (Jesus) radically changed what already existed in politics and religion in his day on earth.

    Is Colin presenting himself as the final arbiter of what is constitutes the “normal” in human life? There is no such thing as “normal”- there are but variations upon whatever the norm pretends to be. Every heterosexual person is to varying extents made up of male and female genes, so what the heck is “normal” Colin? (Possibly you fear your own more feminine traits).

    Then Mr Craig tries to assure us that “people choose to be gay”and with little intelligence completely contradicts himself with the rider, “Many as a result of being abused as children”. I suppose that is as good a wild guess as any (totally unsubstantiated). Colin’s best skills might lie in the composition of fairy stories.Moreover, do any of us possess altogether free choice over anything? Our choices and decisions in life arise from a myriad of circumstances (not limited the abuse in childhood).

    Key, of course, waits until he sees which way the wind is blowing. It will not be easy to fall out of line with his many red-necked adherents.

    This debate concerns loving human relationships, and is too often spoiled by acrimony. Let’s attend to the vast number of inter-relating concerns in country and world that are the diametric opposite of what Love stands for. Thank God if women can love women, men love men – thank God for any semblance of love in society, for it is rather in short supply.

    The issue at hand is gay marriage and raising the topic of adoption by gays is, of course, nothing but the old tactic of distraction. Once we have settled the question of gay marriage, then we can turn to the question of adoption, if this can be done intelligently and not with unproven and poisonous biases.

    • Pete George 11.1
      28 July 2012 at 2:01 pm

      “The issue at hand is gay marriage”

      I disagree with that. The issue is equal rights to get married no matter what your sexuality is.

      • KJT 11.1.1
        28 July 2012 at 2:06 pm

        For once I agree with PG.

      • kiwi_prometheus 11.1.2
        28 July 2012 at 2:32 pm

        You have the equal right like every other NZer to get married to a woman if you are man and vice versa.

        • Pascal's bookie 11.1.2.1
          28 July 2012 at 2:55 pm

          Do you think closeted homosexuals marrying heterosexuals is a good idea for the raising of children?

          How, odd.

          • kiwi_prometheus 11.1.2.1.1
            28 July 2012 at 4:32 pm

            Whose forcing them to? There are Civil Unions to recognise same sex relationships.

            • Pascal's bookie 11.1.2.1.1.1
              28 July 2012 at 4:53 pm

              I thought you were saying that if they want to get married now then they can, and that we don’t need to change the law to make the marriages legally availableto them, better.

              I admit though, that this thought was bsed on the idea that you could string a few propositions together to form a syllogism. I make that mistake quite often when talking about things with conservatives.

              • kiwi_prometheus …
                28 July 2012 at 5:21 pm

                Pete George claimed gays equal rights to marriage were being violated.

                They don’t have rights to marriage.

                Marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s not marriage otherwise.

                If you are attracted to the same sex then you can’t marry. You can get a Civil Union. Why would you want to go on the down low just to get married?

                What’s gays fixation with marriage?

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  28 July 2012 at 5:26 pm

                  Here’s what you said:

                  “You have the equal right like every other NZer to get married to a woman if you are man and vice versa.”

                  so should they or shouldn’t they?

                  Or were you just being a dick?

                  • kiwi_prometheus …
                    28 July 2012 at 5:32 pm

                    Rights aren’t about whether you should but whether you can.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      28 July 2012 at 5:41 pm

                      So you were being a dick then. Shocked I tell you, just shocked.

                      have you found the part of the marriage act where it talks about procreation yet? It’s kind of crucial to your argument. It’d be a knock out blow, you should get right on to that.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      29 July 2012 at 1:20 am

                      I’m sure I just heard Helen Lovejoy shriek “Won’t somebody please think of the children!”

                • felix …
                  28 July 2012 at 5:29 pm

                  “Marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s not marriage otherwise.”

                  I know a few woodworkers who’d disagree with you there kp. And Jesus was a bit of a woodworker. And they’ve got a magical book that proves they’re correct too. (A dictionary)

                  “What’s gays fixation with marriage?”

                  What’s women’s fixation with voting? One man one vote, it’s not even a vote if you’re not a man, obviously.

                  • kiwi_prometheus …
                    28 July 2012 at 5:51 pm

                    Arguments for extensions to who votes are not arguments for extensions to who can get married, you disingenuous little pussy cat, you!

                  • QoT …
                    28 July 2012 at 6:31 pm

                    Sure, k_p. You say “I define X as Y so if it’s not-Y it’s not-X”, felix copies that exact premise back to you, and when you refuse to take the point, felix is the one being disingenuous.

                    BTW, still no comment on the fact that people who have different legal genders yet identical biological sex and thus can never procreate can currently get married, making your tautological bullshit a load of … tautological bullshit?

                • RedBlooded …
                  28 July 2012 at 5:30 pm

                  What’s your fixation with not allowing equal rights? Wailing “Marriage is between a man and a woman” endlessly still wont make it right under the law once this law passes. Hopefully equal rights are on the way and despite your fears and wailing the sky will not fall in and your marriage will in no way be affected.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  29 July 2012 at 1:18 am

                  What’s gays fixation with marriage?

                  You’re the one that seems to be unhealthily preoccupied with the subject.

    • kiwi_prometheus 11.2
      28 July 2012 at 2:28 pm

      Dr Terry -> “There is no such thing as “normal”.”

      Is that your professional opinion, Dr Terry?

      Marriage between a man and woman is normal mate. Just ask any NZer, you willfind they think there is such a thing as ‘normal’ otherwise the word wouldn’t enjoy such popular usage.

      Your semantic game to render the word ‘normal’ meaningless is a laugh.

      • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1
        28 July 2012 at 4:17 pm

        Just ask any NZer, you willfind they think there is such a thing as ‘normal’ otherwise the word wouldn’t enjoy such popular usage.

        Um, either NZHerald or Stuff did on their online polling (which is notoriously inaccurate) and 80% of people thought that gay marriage was normal, i.e, they were supportive of it. What you’re really showing us with that sentence is your own bigotry and ignorance.

        • kiwi_prometheus 11.2.1.1
          28 July 2012 at 4:35 pm

          Ok first you confess the polls don’t mean shit but then you use them to conclude I am ignorant and bigoted.

          Irrational.

          • NickS 11.2.1.1.1
            28 July 2012 at 6:48 pm

            Awww, cupcake, can’t you grok polling 101? In that onlines polls due to their self-selective nature are a lot more biased than a phone poll that has random, stratified selection, and thus statistically are pretty fucking useless.

          • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1.1.2
            28 July 2012 at 7:10 pm

            Actually, the whole point of me saying that they’re inaccurate is because of the bias of the readers of both Stuff and NZHerald. Generally speaking they’re the group that you’d expect to be most against gay marriage and they’re for it.

            BTW, I linked up a bit to an actual poll by TVNZ and that says that the people are ~75% in favour of gay marriage.

    • weka 11.3
      28 July 2012 at 3:11 pm

      “Christian Colin Craig asserts that we must “never change what already exists””
       
      I think what he means is what already exists now. Otherwise there would be no JudeoChristian god, who was a latecomer to the scene anyway.

      • McFlock 11.3.1
        28 July 2012 at 3:13 pm

        An ncremental change is disturbingly close to evolution, and we can’t have that…

      • Populuxe1 11.3.2
        29 July 2012 at 12:46 am

        So we go back to slavery, forbidding interracial marriages, killing disobedient children, concubines and so forth?

    • millsy 11.4
      28 July 2012 at 3:18 pm

      If Colin Craig had his way, this country will be Taliban controlled Afghanistan. No politically correct social engineering there..

  12. millsy 12
    28 July 2012 at 3:16 pm

    The way I see it, how people determine their sexual preferences, family arrangements, relationships is really not for the church, or for the government to decide and quite frankly, no one elses business.

    It really pisses me off how people who think someone with a magic(k) wand made everything about 3000-odd years ago, and read a fairy tale written by someone who was probably high on hashish at the time, should dictate how people should live their lives, which is pretty much swaddling people in a social straitjacket, forcing people into an arbitrary living arrangement of a man, woman and 2 kids, which IMO has lead to untold misery for thousands of people who don’t see that as suiting their needs. Divorce and domestic violence rates attest to that.

    I dont really see any harm in opening marriage up to same sex couples. In fact, I fully support it.

    And quite frankly the god-botherers can get fucked. Well kick the shit out of them like we did over the arrangement of the solar system, evolution, divorce, spousal rape, abortion, civil unions and smacking.

    • kiwi_prometheus 12.1
      28 July 2012 at 4:57 pm

      Marriage is between a man and a woman.

      Marriage creates social stability – just take look at the alternatives attempted since the 1960s – Center Point anyone?

      No one is being forced to get married. There is the option of Civil Unions for those who don’t meet the criteria for marriage or prefer not to marry but want some kind of state recognition.

      • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1
        28 July 2012 at 5:01 pm

        “Marriage creates social stability”

        That’s a great conservative argument for opening up mrriage to include the other sorts of relationships that humans want to have.

        • kiwi_prometheus 12.1.1.1
          28 July 2012 at 5:27 pm

          “other sorts of relationships” aren’t marriage.

          Go make up a word for them if you like. Claim that they enhance social stability if you like.

          Leave marriage alone.

          • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2012 at 5:38 pm

            Marriage is defined in legislation. You can look it up. Change the legislation, change the definition. Logic see. Deal.

            • kiwi_prometheus 12.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2012 at 5:53 pm

              Sure you can change it so someone can marry a horse or a magic blue leprechaun. Logic see.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                28 July 2012 at 5:58 pm

                Could indeed. Don’t think we should though. And have arguments for why I think that.

                But seeing you agree we can change the definition by changing the legislaition, ‘poof’, that was your argument disappearing in a puff of…logic.

              • RedBlooded …
                28 July 2012 at 6:00 pm

                Oh Jeez, we knew this was coming. Sure kp and if I’m allowed to marry my horse I promise I will allow you to marry yours as well. /sarc. There you go, it’s called equal rights.

                • felix …
                  28 July 2012 at 6:12 pm

                  😀 I hope this human/horse coupling isn’t going to be gay though. Marriage is only between male and female mammals.

                  • mac1 …
                    28 July 2012 at 6:17 pm

                    D’ja ever see a female centaur?

                    • felix …
                      28 July 2012 at 6:23 pm

                      If I did I’d definitely propose.

                      Seriously though, this whole “next you’ll want to marry your dog” bit kind of implies that gay people are a bit like animals, with no ability to consent or decide.

                      Which makes me wonder how they’ll ever get married…

                  • RedBlooded …
                    28 July 2012 at 6:22 pm

                    Oh yeah, and of course unless science finds a way to create children from this mythical marriage in k_p’s world then the marriage wouldn’t be real either. I obviously hadn’t thought through the seriousness of marrying my horse. 🙂

                    • felix …
                      28 July 2012 at 7:05 pm

                      “I obviously hadn’t thought through the seriousness of marrying my horse.”

                      If I had a bag of oats for every time I’ve heard that…

        • just saying 12.1.1.2
          28 July 2012 at 7:35 pm

          The infamous English Wests anyone.

      • rosy 12.1.2
        28 July 2012 at 11:53 pm

        Marriage creates social stability

        hmmm – not for my family. But if it did, that’s an excellent line in support of gay marriage.

      • millsy 12.1.3
        29 July 2012 at 1:51 pm

        Social stability comes from a comprehensive welfare state, and extensive provision and funding of social services and assets from kindergartens to hospitals to libraries , as well as encouragement of high wages through fair employment law, not dictating to people what relationships to form with each other.

        And Bert Potter was a disgusting pervert who set up centerpoint so he would have a ready supply of 12 year old girls — same reason why other disgusting perverts enter the preisthood.

      • mike e 12.1.4
        29 July 2012 at 5:17 pm

        kiddi phiddler Bigot
        Churches of one sort or another have a far worse record

  13. marty mars 13
    28 July 2012 at 3:43 pm

    i agree mostly (not the kicking bit) with millsy on this. I support same-sex couples getting married if they want.

    I’ve been married twice and divorced twice. I believed in marriage when i made my vows, I’m not sure i do now.

    • bad12 13.1
      28 July 2012 at 4:01 pm

      All this talk of marriage, how feudal can we all get, gods sake are we all that much into bondage, i find the whole issue of marriage to be a declaration of ones property rights over another…

  14. infused 14
    28 July 2012 at 4:04 pm

    You should probably post JK’s entire speech about it. Reason for it being shot down was because it offered nothing over what’s there currently.

  15. Tanz 15
    28 July 2012 at 4:48 pm

    A referendum though is a good idea for gauging the numbers for and against.

    • QoT 15.1
      28 July 2012 at 9:51 pm

      Only if the question is unambiguous. Mind you, maybe the pro-marriage equality folks could get together on this and pull a Larry Baldock:

      “Should same-sex marriage for the purposes of good cultural inclusiveness not be considered an offence in New Zealand?”

    • millsy 15.2
      29 July 2012 at 1:53 pm

      Sounds OK to me. It will enable the god-botherers to put their money where their mouths are.

  16. chris73 16
    28 July 2012 at 11:37 pm

    I’ve always thought that anything that promotes monogamy and fidelity within a relationship can only be a good thing

    As for the adoption thing well if a child can have two loving parents then that’s better than most of us get so good on them

    • Pascal's bookie 16.1
      28 July 2012 at 11:51 pm

      Very well said Chris.

    • Draco T Bastard 16.2
      29 July 2012 at 1:47 am

      I’ve always thought that anything that promotes monogamy and fidelity within a relationship can only be a good thing

      Only if you’re the monogamous type. Not really applicable to the polygynous, polyamory and swinger types.

  17. Murray Olsen 17
    29 July 2012 at 12:13 am

    Why is a closet homosexual like Kiwi PromQueen allowed to spew his filthy bile without moderation? Trying to use logic on that fruitcake is like reciting poetry to a rotting whale carcass. It won’t hear a thing and the smell just gets worse.

  18. Robert Atack 18
    29 July 2012 at 9:28 am

    I see this as an argument over the definition of a word – marriage = man and woman, and has done since the word was ‘created’. Now if the fags want all the legal rights of a married ‘straight couple’ most people don’t have a problem with that, so lets just have a different name, here are some suggestions

    Gayriage
    Homoriage
    Lesyrige
    Fagrige

    or whatever?
    Just leave the word marriage to the ‘people’ who started it.
    And all you gay fucks can have your own word?

    NB I’m ok with anyone fucking anyone, as long as both ‘fuckies’ are consenting adults, and there are no children produced.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    It is all bullshit

    • gobsmacked 18.1
      29 July 2012 at 9:33 am

      Just leave the word marriage to the ‘people’ who started it.

      You’ll need to think that one through.

    • felix 18.2
      29 July 2012 at 9:38 am

      The word is “fuckees“.

    • Te Reo Putake 18.3
      29 July 2012 at 9:52 am

      Jeez, Robert, there’s no need for the homophobia. Your other comments on the economy and the environment suggest you are an intelligent chap, if somewhat depressed. Lift your game, eh.

      • Robert Atack 18.3.1
        29 July 2012 at 9:56 am

        Sorry Te, just poking sticks at fools who want to argue about pointless crap

        And I had enough ‘gay’ contacts to know ‘they’ would not mind my comments.

    • Pete George 18.4
      29 July 2012 at 10:35 am

      I see this as an argument over the definition of a word – marriage = man and woman, and has done since the word was ‘created’

      Origin:
      1250–1300; Middle English marien < Old French marier < Latin marītāre to wed, derivative of marītus conjugal, akin to mās male (person)

      Word Origin & History
      marry
      c.1300, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor").

      marry
      a common oath in the Middle Ages, c.1350, now obsolete, a corruption of the name of the Virgin Mary.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marry

      Nothing there definitively saying marriage = man and woman.

      And anyone who knows about language evolution will say the definition history is irrelevant. “Gay” has evolved to a variety of modern uses, eg merry, homosexual and lame.

      As others have said, how we legally define marriage is up to us now.

      It could be said that Louisa Wall is trying to make marry merry.

      • QoT 18.4.1
        29 July 2012 at 11:30 am

        marry
        a common oath in the Middle Ages, c.1350, now obsolete, a corruption of the name of the Virgin Mary.

        Now THAT I did not know. Today, I have learnt something via Pete George. Possible sign of the Apocalypse? 😛

    • Pete George 18.5
      29 July 2012 at 12:03 pm

      Another common anti equality line is that marriage should be left ‘as it always was’.

      Marriage used to commonly be a contract of a man taking ownership of a woman.
      Marriage used to commonly be the only financial security a woman could have.
      Marriage used to be a power arrangement (where one or both people being married had no say).
      Marriage used to often be under shotgun conditions.
      Marriage used to be the only acceptable way a child could leave the family home.
      Marriage used to be the primary ‘career’ choice of women.

      Most of that no longer happens (in New Zealand at least), fortunately.

      Marriage has evolved into being an optional voluntary equal arrangement and commitment between two people.

      A bit more evolution won’t hurt most people, but it will help some people and will be far better than some of the oppressive marriage practices of the past.

      • mike e 18.5.1
        29 July 2012 at 5:22 pm

        By jeezzez Pg you can speak sense good on you.
        Don’t forget how many unhappy marriages their are and divorces once frowned on by the church.
        Any couple who are happy in their relationship good luck to them its not that common.

      • terryg 18.5.2
        30 July 2012 at 1:14 am

        dammit Pete, just when I had you pidgeonholed as a blithering idiot, you go and get all reasoned, rational and progressive on me. well done sir.

    • Populuxe1 18.6
      29 July 2012 at 6:01 pm

      For the record, Robert, the only context where the word “fag” isn’t highly offensive is as slang for cigarette.

      • Robert Atack 18.6.1
        29 July 2012 at 9:27 pm

        It is only a word, surly being rogered by the banks and government every day is more offensive?
        But what the hell, maybe you don’t have children to worry about, I haven’t, but I gave it 10 years of effort to help the unfortunate buggers.

      • mike e 18.6.2
        29 July 2012 at 10:21 pm

        or a bunch thin branches or sticks in a bundle used for firewood possibly irish.

    • Frank Macskasy 18.7
      29 July 2012 at 10:04 pm

      “I see this as an argument over the definition of a word – marriage = man and woman, and has done since the word was ‘created’. Now if the fags want all the legal rights of a married ‘straight couple’ most people don’t have a problem with that, so lets just have a different name, here are some suggestions

      Gayriage
      Homoriage
      Lesyrige
      Fagrige

      or whatever?
      Just leave the word marriage to the ‘people’ who started it.
      And all you gay fucks can have your own word?

      NB I’m ok with anyone fucking anyone, as long as both ‘fuckies’ are consenting adults, and there are no children produced. It is all bullshit”

      Are you even attempting to posit a rational argument? Or just reliant on naked prejudice and silly comments to make your point?

      • Robert Atack 18.7.1
        29 July 2012 at 10:25 pm

        Just not giving a fuck really 😉
        Like I said before I was just poking a stick at people debating bullshit.
        You can walk around with a rasp shoved up your bum, and call it your true love as far as I’m concerned.
        We are a bunch of soon to be extinct monkeys, nothing matters.
        Apart from maybe algal blooms, locus swarms, and rat plagues, we are one of the only species ‘smart’ enough to destroy our future living arrangement.
        But yeah my naked prejudice for the truth, while surrounded by so much denial, does make me lose the plot now and then.

        • Populuxe1 18.7.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 11:11 pm

          If you don’t give a “fuck”, may I respectfully suggest you “fuck” off.

          • terryg 18.7.1.1.1
            30 July 2012 at 1:16 am

            hmm, someone appears to have deliberately rammed their head up their bum. can we blame that on climate change? methinks not.

  19. Populuxe1 19
    29 July 2012 at 9:33 pm

    I fail to see how that, whatever you actually mean, has anything to do with you being obnoxiously offensive. C**t is only a word. N****r is only a word. Grown ups still refrain from using them in polite, or at least public conversation.

  20. Johnm 20
    29 July 2012 at 11:07 pm

    R. Atack’s comments have given me the best LOL, LOL, LOL I’ve had for a very long time ,thankyou Robert over and out!