Its amazing how the Nats have clung to power at all, but when you look at the alternative you can see why 100000s of nzers are not even bothering to vote at all anymore. 8(
The comments on the NZ Herald are really negative too, this one got the most likes by a mile: "Democracy fell in the streets last night. 36 List MPs who nobody voted for has more of a say on conscience than the electorate and people in the street who ...
Maybe in the future the law change can be reversed. Then they can go about it in a truly democratic sense and put it to referendum.
Why does it make no sense in the context of the US constitution?
Thats right CV scream bigot at anyone who disagrees with you. You've trashed marriage and patting yourself on the back for it. There was never a real debate or discussion. Just manipulative politics from a vocal minority in the Labour camp. The people of ...
Winie Peters gave a great speech and summed up the situation nicely. I liked the way he wiped the smirk of Ms Wall's face and the sniggering turned to silence when Winnie asked her about what support she had from the people of South Auckland. Telling, also...
"with a few ill-understood phases attached as camouflage" Ill understood by you that is, lprent. Ok none of you are gone to budge from your entrenched positions, so I will leave you to your little hollow victory party tonight. But I will continue to oppose...
That's right McFlock scream BIGOT!!!! at anyone who doesn't buy into the propaganda.
Opposing a revisionist approach to marriage is nasty? Objecting to the ideology of Social Constructivism and its proponents is nasty? Whatever.
“a natural consequence of human rights and social justice” Natural? As compared to Socially Constructed? That's a new slant , you lot are all over the place, incapable of presenting a coherent philosophical argument which only indicates how flawed your ...
lprent, anytime you want to add something to the debate about the revisionist concept of marriage or the dominance of Social Constructionism on which gay politics is grounded, just go ahead. 8)
I like the use of "LGBT" there joe, putting the L for Lesbian first even though they are far far few in number than gay guys, and played a much smaller role in gay rights. But I have always been aware from comments expressed by gay guys that lesbians ...
You've completely redefined marriage to mean something else, something far less and seriously flawed. That's nothing to celebrate. Karol, now I know your sexuality, it doesn't surprise me of course, especially your Left Academic ideas grounded in that ...
Reply links still not showing. framu -> "So what if my argument isnt unique – at least i can argue my corner with my own words" Oh ok so first I'm guilty of not being orginal but now you admit you arent saying anything original. So now you change it: ...
I'm not getting any Reply links on your recent posts so here goes: McFlock "Just working off your quote, kp. -> “The use of the slogan “equality” cleverly skews the debate…" Well McFlock, do you not understand the use of the quote marks around the word ...
How is it incest if they are not attracted sexually, they are not engaged in sexually conjugation with each other?
Are you gay? Just wondering because you seem to have flipped out big time.
" your failure to say something original from your own brain? " You have only put foward the standard pro gay marriage argument, you have provided no original argument. " dont like talking to robots" So quoting from a source is wrong? You haven't got a ...
Calling equality a “slogan” is a “devastating argument”? See there you go, twisting and squirming. pro gay "marriage" proponents USING equality as a "slogan".
No you are the one who has no argument or should I say a defeated one. You refuse to engage in the points I've made, or those expressed in the Ahdar article. Telling you went into a rant about Ahdar being all BS with no counter argument to his.
"Who says two people have to be attracted to each other sexually in order to marry?" Well if you believe that then surely you believe a grandma and a granddaughter should be allowed to get married.
"You’ve admitted before that you can’t find any reference to me writing about pc feminist propaganda so I’ll thank you to keep your descriptions of me to those which you can actually ascertain." LOL, who are you trying to kid, girlfriend! You are hardcore ...
It is a devastating reply to your mangled argument. I will continue to quote Ahdar, he has produced a very articulate argument - not surprising from a man of obvious sharp intellect. You just can't handle it can you, framu.
"you need to prove that allowing gay marriage will bring about the erasure of procreation for that to be true" BS. Look mate you are not even paying attention to the opposition's argument. And you don't seem to have much understanding of your own argument....
"your still avoiding the central issue though – in a secular democratic society that is meant to recognise that we are all equal before the law, what give you me or anyone else the right to claim that we can enjoy a right and deny it to others at the same ...
"never said that " But its there in your principle stupid -> "its all about LURV!" You lot just keep going around in ever decreasing philosophical circles. And it comes back to what Ahdar articulates about 2 concepts of marriage - conjugal and contractual....
That they are attracted to each other, in love, whatever you want to call it. My god you're so drunk on PC Feminist propaganda you can't even see the obvious?
As Ahdar so succinctly puts it: "To redefine marriage (to allow same-sex partners) is to abolish it. Partnership marriage does not keep the existing institution and simply allow more persons to join it. No, it eviscerates it and substitutes a new concept."
"My elderly, straight, aunt married her long term gay, male best friend. Why? because the cared deeply, nay, loved each other" They are faking it though, shame on them. Because some rat bags fake it, gays should be allowed to do it? Following your argument...
As you quoted from Ahdar yourself: "To redefine marriage (to allow same-sex partners) is to abolish it. Partnership marriage does not keep the existing institution and simply allow more persons to join it. No, it eviscerates it and substitutes a new ...
Why don't gays get on with relationship building in their own civil unions and leave heterosexual marriages alone?
Recent Comments